An good education is a marvelous thing. And I will be eternally grateful to all those who have given and supported my efforts in taking the opportunity to partake of two exemplary and radical degrees. I am extremely lucky and white, middle class Australian and the rest of it. I shouldn't complain, only 3 weeks left to go. However, about 5 hours ago I was reminded of just how fucking annoying stupid people with too much education can be. Why 'academics' in this course (and i use inverted commas advisedly) can annoy me so fucking much is the undying dedication to obfuscation that I have had the abject stupidity to subject myself to for four cunt years.
'What do you mean by "expanded field"?'
'If you read the course guide which is a document developed by the department outlining the tripolar model against which we must align our practice [your what, you academic?!] and which all we lecturers have had to position ourselves against, within this tripolarity, and boy does that make staff meetings exciting blah blah blah and use it to position your own projects.'
'I've read the course guide twice and I still don't understand what you mean by "expanded field"? I know what expanded might mean, but field has so many possibilities...do you mean a paddock that's getting bigger?'
'Well there no right or wrong answer, it's a useful way of positioning yourself and helping you to examine where you sit.'
'In a big fucking paddock.'
other student: 'I think if it resonates with you, then it is useful, and it might help you to think about your work and to position yourself.'
'So, if it doesn't resonate with me i should just ignore it. It's not going to resonate because I've got no fucking idea what it is that you're talking about.'
'You could try Googling it, Christine.'
Yes. Right.
Only sixty one thousand hits. Right.
Now fuck off.
For those (two) of you who are interested in the outcomes of my
investigation into the Youngs Siding white ant signs, here is an update.
No it wasn't ...
Posts
5 comments:
I would read it as 'theoretical field', field of knowledge, underpinning philosophy behind your own work. My understanding is that the further you go in any study area the more you have to be sure about where your ideas fit ie contextualise them in the bigger picture. Does that sound like it makes sense?
When I had to write my candiadacy I had the same challenge, not having studied much art theory really or philosophy, but eventually I found the area that my ideas fit into. It doesn't mean you are restricted to stay there, but when you look at it from their point of view, they do have to have something against which thay can measure, compare your interpretation. Otherwise any conversation is just too big.
Yes some of them are completely and utterly full of shite aren't they - God help us!
yes, totally full of it!
they seem to assume because you ask a simple question that you are simple (in the derogatory sense.) i simply wanted to know if they were referring to field of study, or some kind of physical idea of field. If you want me to place myself in context, tell me what you mean when you say this word, so i can see where i am placing myself.
it's not that i have any issue about understanding where i fit, or the process of contextualisation: i've been having fun with that all semester. it's simply a matter of 'when you say "field" what "field" are you refering to?'
I think Michelle is on the money ... but I also think you should take them out to the big fucking paddock, shoot them and then write an essay about it. Or maybe you could put an interpretive plaque there?
What you say makes total sense Michelle.
My only prob is that if that is what it means, as it might quite reasonably do, then it's a circular argument: the whole process we are undertaking is about positioning. Am I therefore being asked to position my positioning...? Given the current state of the affairs the answer is probably yes!
Mind you, having caught up on my sleep, it doesn't all sound quite so ridiculous today, I guess i'll just get on with it.
Post a Comment