From Critical Practice Chelsea
Revision as of 12:24, 16 September 2014 by Neil (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The general function of the Research working group is to practice research through making things happen, developing reading groups, events, screenings, discussions, talks, walks ... towards the Market of Evaluation

Members: Neil Cummings, Marsha Bradfield, Amy McDonnell

Meeting on January 29, 2013: Present: Neil Cummings, Marsha Bradfield, Amy McDonnell, Kuba Szreder, Karem Ibrahim, Metod Blejec and Angela Hodgson Teall

TIMELINE of our research into EVALUATION

  • Utopographies: Evaluation, Consensus and Location
  • Our ongoing Evaluation Screenings and anticipating the expectantly awaited Banner of Values
  • Hans Abbing - EVALUATION (October 2013) - intimate discussion on how to think about 'evaluation'
  • WASTE Walk (February 2013) - two-part walk looking at waste from different perspectives
  • One Persons Trash is anothers Treasure (April 2013) - workshop on gleaning, recycling and more
  • Spaces and Values (September 2012) three-part walk (Law/God/Landed interests n architecture/urban planning)
  • HEDGE (November 2012) research trip/focused weekend - Lumsden/Huntly Scotland - walks, reading group, discussions, workshops: research questions - (1) Geopolitical: What values organise Aberdeenshire? How do these compare to the values organising EC2?; (2) Organisational: What values organise SSW? How do these compare to the values organising CP?; (3) Spatial/Material: What is the specific value of sculpture as conceptualised by SSW and beyond? How does this compare to the value of walking, as evidenced by our walk with Michael (and others)?

How do we imagine developing this Research Strand?

  • Where does research sit within CP? How does it happen? Who conducts it? Do we really want to get into a meta discussion about research? The short answer: Research in CP happens variously and organically - there is no substantive common knowledge.
  • What do we like/dislike about our program so far? People seemed to like the walks...we can get maximum 15-20 people.
  • What about a screening? What about Metod film archive? Perhaps this could be screened in the Bread&Roses.
  • What about taking a forensic approach?
  • Do we want to make this research public? This would enable us to apply for public monies.
  • What about a more discursive format? A critical commentary? Perhaps everyone should have a pause and play button? Perhaps you have experts on the podium narrating it? How do we need to get the watching of visual content more discursive? Watching TV with their families - how do we activate the discursive - the meta critique
  • There are two issues - developing our understanding of evaluation OR we
  • There's a famous trial from the 1990s - green and red paddels...
  • No rotten tomatoes
  • Typology of formats - (1) twitter commentary; (2) screening group (discuss movie with no screening); (3) representations of evaluation; (4) stop/go - with critical commentary; (5) show a whole film and discuss it; (6) voice over; (7) cinematic presentations - Peter Flemming; (8) intimate screenings
  • 2-3 screening (?) Three/four screenings two weeks apart (?) -
  • Suggestion - April/May = screenings; June walk; July boat
  • What forms? What content/theme? We organized a value camp that was just for us?
  • We agree that we'll use our small budget to pay for the screening and then resource Chelsea for the walk/boat trip...


Developing a project description to send along with the invites?


  • Other working groups: Who wants to archive and when? NOT ADDRESSED
  • Neil to pitch: Evaluation, Consensus and Location 28th - 29 th March 2014 - Does CP still want to be involved? Who wants to be involved? This group is interested consensus - (displaced)...we have the triangle space from the 24th to the 28th of March. The days leading up to the 28th will be about installing a structure to host an event. There's already rich content being proposed. They're interested in some of our event structures like the barcamp. CP could be involved in this however they want. We could help for the whole period and build something; we could make a structure/space. The previous event had lots of artistic content but they did it like an academic conference. They're interested in being creatively estranged from the present, but they don't have mechanisms to explore/support this. There could be an exhibition element - Neil has put that 2000.00 towards this event. There were about 30,000 presentations. Of all kinds. U-tope Evaluation will meet on February 10, 2014 - 6-9.
  • Report on the Millbank Market development SLOW


Return to Evaluation Research Group or Evaluation Reading Group or New working groups