lundi 28 février 2011

Exposition “Drawing in an Expanded Field”

“Drawing in an Expanded Field”
30 / 300
300 ans d’existence de l’Académie royale des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles - EsA
et 30 ans de l’atelier de dessin
est ouverte
à De Markten
5 Vieux Marché aux Grains, 1000 Brussels
du 25 février au 3 avril 2011.

Exposants : Laurent David, Amélie de Beauffort
Ets. Didier Decoux, Charles de Lantsheere
Vincent Delpierre, Esther de Patoul
Benoît Félix, Jean-François Fontaine
Bruno Goosse, Aurélie Gravelat
Swan Mahieu, Guy Massaux
Cambyse Naddaf, Lin Yao Kai
artiste invitée : Laura Lisbon (Columbus Ohio)

lundi 14 février 2011

Eliane Escoubas, “Heidegger : poésie et pensée”

Eliane Escoubas
“Heidegger : poésie et pensée”
le mercredi 23 février 2011 à 18 h 30
Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles
Auditoire Horta
Rue du Midi, 144, 1000 Bruxelles
Entrée libre

lundi 7 février 2011

International Drawing on Knowledge Research Network

International Drawing on Knowledge Research Network
Connect with those who research into/through drawing
The International Drawing on Knowledge Research Network is an international network that links about 70 people from across the world who are connected to drawing in some way. This network welcomes artists, academics, educators and others to share their ideas and research on drawing practices and theories.

20/27 n°05

Vient de paraître
20/27 n°05

292 pages, 13 textes, 290 œuvres. Au sommaire : Xavier Veilhan par Arnauld Pierre, Gavin Turk par Natacha Pugnet, Olivier Dolligner par Mathilde Villeneuve, Pascal Broccolichi par Thierry Davila, Mircea Cantor par Fabien Faure, Veit Stratmann par Nina Gülicher, Jeff Koons par Patrick Javault, Christopher Williams par Guillaume Leingre, Martin Boyce par Marjolaine Lévy, Rémy Hysbergue par Guitemie Maldonado, Tacita Dean par Hélène Meisel, Jonathan Monk par Vanessa Morisset, Peter Roehr par Marie Muracciole.

Grande revue annuelle de textes critiques sur l'art publiée par M19, 20/27 offre un espace à une critique d'art ambitieuse, tout à la fois soucieuse d'une perspective historique et souhaitant accompagner des œuvres en train de se construire. Forte d'une véritable politique d'auteurs, 20/27 produit des études monographiques sur des travaux d'actualité, mais également sur certains de ceux qui les ont précédés et les éclairent.
Directeur de la publication : Pierre Denan ; comité de rédaction : Pierre Denan, Michel Gauthier, Arnauld Pierre.

Imagining Imagination - International Conference

Imagining Imagination - International Conference

10 & 11 June 2011

CFP deadline: 15 March 2011

Royal College of Art
Kensington Gore
London SW7 2EU

Conference organizers:
Dr. Michael Schwab, Royal College of Art, London
Dr. Sabine Flach, SVA – School of Visual Arts, New York City
Dr. Aikaterini Fotopoulou, King's College London

Imagination, central to art history, art theory, philosophy, artistic practice and research, has again become an important topic in a number of fields outside the arts, including medicine and the sciences. Significantly, all these fields of knowledge-production are currently re-addressing imagination beyond romantic conceptions, as a complex thinking process. The transdisciplinary conference Imagining Imagination investigates different conceptualizations of imagination, the capacities through which imagination can be imagined, and images of imagination that are being produced as part of research on the subject.
As the conference title suggests, an extraordinary reflexive position is required to appreciate the phenomenon: the complex mental process of imagination calls for imaginatory thinking that makes imagination addressable by giving contours to its particularities. Without such exceptional cognitive modes, imagination remains indescribable. Imaginatory thinking processes need to be employed before a sufficiently sharp description can arise, which even then is dependant on the imagination of the recipient. This is directly related to the double structure that is at the heart of every imaginative process. The very nature of imagination lies beyond simple brain functions and can be envisioned in the interrelationship between the brain, the body and its environment. How exactly this interactive process is developed and organized is one of the main questions of the conference.
Imagination is related to imagination, which embeds a notion of image - a picture or imago - in bodily processes. Imagining Imagination will take this broad idea of 'image' as the active ingredient both in visual thinking and perception, acknowledging that the act of seeing (which is more than just a capacity of the eye) implicates self-perception. However, it will question the nature of a way of seeing that constantly oscillates between 'external' and 'internal' determinations of perception and imagination, as often suggested by the sciences. Is the correspondence of external given and internal appearance even possible? Once it is established that humans are able to think in images, a key question concerning the imagination’s constitutional set-up arises: can it be maintained that an internal and an external vision even exists? Would the seeing of objects and persons and even one’s own body then be a seeing of the first order, while consciousness – self-relation or reflection – defines a seeing of a second order? The assumption that the mental can be framed as an image does not at all establish that the consciousness is a box into which small material images are inserted through the act of seeing, to be looked at and perceived like paintings on a wall in a gallery. Although there is no doubt that ideas within perception are immaterial, this does not imply that such ideas do not possess structural features known from images. Assuming that an essential iconic structure is immanent to the imagination, it is also important to revise the imaginatory status of the image.
This revision detaches images from simplified optical references to objects in the external world and leads to a notion that encompasses the image’s agency. Images of this kind do not necessarily have to reproduce what is visible, but instead what has not yet been seen. They are neither purely retinal phenomena, nor representations of a view of the self that allows for a glimpse of the soul in order to constitute itself as an organ of knowledge. Pictures have their own dignity and their own organization of movement.
Imagination has long fascinated and divided the sciences of the mind. In cognitive sciences, debates focused on the commonalities, differences and hierarchical relations with visual perception, language and imagery. The healthy marriage of imagination with creativity challenged scientists who looked for a simple ‘extension of perception’ model. In typical Popperian fashion, the cognitive sciences have progressively focused on operational definitions and the subordinate cognitive processes of imagination, including inhibition, visuo-spatial thinking, fluency and abstraction. More recently, cognitive neuroscience has endeavoured to provide the neural correlates of the ‘black box’ processes described above. And yet imagination resists such simplification by the sciences. Dreams and fantasies, creative neuropsychiatric symptoms and the anticipation of the world in which the body moves have all led to theories that portray a complex view of imagination and an even more complex relationship between mental processes of imagination and the brain that serves them. Scientists are nowadays called upon to look for the brain processes that allow the mind to dream up both itself and the world, creatively, through imagination. This allows humans not only to manipulate the world by mere thought and imagination (as in studies of motor control by human-computer interfaces), but also to ultimately change its own brain through psychogenic neuroplasticity.
Imagining Imagination will bring together researchers from multiple disciplines in order to create novel crossovers between artistic and scientific research and their respective methodologies. For this to happen, imaginatory knowledge requires picturing, mapping or description of some sort, and the modes in which this happens are of great importance in particular in respect to the discussions surrounding artistic research. The conference will explore the implications that interdisciplinarity has for our understanding of the role and function of imagination in knowledge production in particular, when image and imagination are more than agents of visibility. The conference aims to open up a dimension in which seeing itself gains an additional value based on the certainty that art does not necessarily have to reproduce what is visible, but instead what one has not yet seen.

Questions that might be addressed include:
 What is the role and power of the imagination? Does it compensate for a loss of reality?
 What is the epistemic status of the imagination?
 What examples can be given of imagination playing a central role in research?
 What is the importance of the fictive, the possible and the projected within research processes?
 How factual is imagination?
 How does one describe the particular state one is in when one imagines?
 What is the relationship between imagination and fantasy?
 How do attention and concentration operate in the imagination? Is a lack of focus beneficial to the imagination?
 How important is imagination for mental health?
 What are the social implications of imagination?
 What role does the imagination play in art-making? Is imagination a creative process?
 What are the creative processes within imagination?
 How much imagination is hidden in scientific knowledge?
 How does imagination actually work?
 Are there different types of imagination?
 How does one describe mediality in the context of imagination?
 How important is imagination for visual knowledge?
 How is imagination (re)presented in research and its methodologies?

The conference will take place at:

Royal College of Art
Kensington Gore
London SW7 2EU

Conference fee: £150 full/£60 reduced
Scholars and artists interested in presenting at the conference are invited to send a proposal of 300 words, their CV and a list of publications/exhibitions to the following address by 15 March 2011:

vendredi 4 février 2011


31 MARS – 1ER AVRIL 2011

Organisé par la Haute école d’art et de design – Genève en collaboration avec le MAMCO et l’Université de Genève

Jean-Philippe Antoine, Cyrille Bret, Leszek Brogowski, Victor Burgin, Bertrand Clavez, Géraldine Gourbe, Antje Kramer, Microsillons, Raphaël Pirenne, Valter Rosa, Jeffrey Saletnik, Katia Schneller, Æsa Sigurjonsdottir, John Welchman.

Un chantier historique
Or, si ces thèmes recoupent des questions effectivement cruciales au regard des changements institutionnels que connaissent les écoles d’art, ils méritent d’être théoriquement développés, historiquement inscrits, concrètement situés, pour être ressaisis à des fins critiques et contribuer à l’établissement de modèles pour l’enseignement et la recherche artistiques. C’est pourquoi l’objet de ce colloque est de procéder à un état des lieux historiographique sur les figures et les méthodes de la transmission artistique au XXe siècle et de délimiter, pour les historiens de l’art et les philosophes, un champ de recherche dans lequel seraient pris en compte les mythes, les échecs, les apories, les structures idéologiques autant que les expérimentations les plus fécondes en matière de transmission. Il apparaît par ailleurs que si l’histoire des grandes institutions artistiques fondées par les avant-gardes a fait l’objet de nombreuses études, en revanche, le rôle joué en matière de formation par des artistes déterminants dans leur époque demeure insuffisamment pris en considération par les historiens de l’art contemporain.

Des perspectives théoriques
Autant juger sur pièce, identifier des pédagogies, préciser les formes et les objectifs de recherche de manière objective et critique en libérant le statut d’enseignant-artiste de ses mythes, pour évaluer, en acte, comment opèrent les relations de la théorie et de la pratique. Ce colloque entend donc rassembler des contributions sur des artistes qui se sont illustrés dans l’enseignement, dont l’influence a été saluée ou discutée par leurs étudiants et dont les méthodes pédagogiques se signalent par leur singularité : soit qu’elles reconduisent ou déplacent des modèles traditionnels (l’atelier, la « classe », l’apprentissage technique), soit qu’elles témoignent de conceptions plus expérimentales qui floutent les frontières du pédagogique et de l’artistique.

Organisateurs Christophe Kihm et Valérie Mavridorakis

Lieu : Haute école d’art et de design – Genève
Bd James-Fazy 15,
1201 Genève

mercredi 2 février 2011

Revue en ligne : Trivium

Revue en ligne : Trivium

Éditée par les Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme avec le concours de partenaires allemands et français, la revue électronique Trivium publie des traductions d'articles. Elle se conçoit comme un instrument d’échanges, de coopération entre les communautés de recherche francophone et germanophone et de communication en sciences sociales et humaines.

"Esthétique et science de l'art"

Sous la direction de Andreas Beyer, Danièle Cohn et Tania Vladova
Issu du sujet annuel 2008/2009 du Centre allemand d’histoire de l’art à Paris, ce numéro propose un choix de textes de la première moitié du XXème siècle. Moment historique décisif de l’histoire croisée de l’esthétique et de l’histoire de l’art, ces décennies sont celles de l’émergence de la « Kunstwissenschaft » en Allemagne et de la science de l’art en France.

Andreas Beyer, Danièle Cohn et Tania Vladova, Introduction
Dossier : Textes traduits en français
Emil Utitz, Le problème d’une science générale de l’art [1922]
Max Dessoir, Introduction à Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft [1906]
Max Dessoir, Systématique et histoire des arts [1914]
August Schmarsow, La science de l’art et la philosophie de la culture et leurs concepts fondamentaux communs I [1919]
August Schmarsow, La science de l’art et la philosophie de la culture et leurs concepts fondamentaux communs II [1919]
Erwin Panofsky, Sur la relation entre l’histoire de l’art et la théorie de l’art. Contribution au débat sur la possibilité de « concepts fondamentaux de la science de l’art » [1924]

« Iconic Turn » et réflexion sociétale
Sous la direction de Georges Didi-Huberman et Bernd Stiegler
Avec la collaboration de Daniela Kneißl.
En 1967, Richard Rorty avait énoncé un linguistic turn (tournant linguistique) pour la philosophie qui ne devait pas rester sans conséquence pour les sciences sociales. À beaucoup d’endroits l’on proclame et met en scène aujourd’hui un iconic ou pictorial turn (tournant iconique), et l’on peut s’attendre à ce qu’il ne reste pas sans conséquence pour les sciences sociales. Un bilan critique des débats allemands et français est hautement souhaitable.

Bernd Stiegler, « Iconic Turn » et réflexion sociétale
Georges Didi-Huberman, En ordre dispersé

Textes traduits en français
Lambert Wiesing, Réalité virtuelle : l’ajustement de l’image et de l’imagination
Sigrid Weigel, Les images, acteurs majeurs de la connaissance. À propos de la poiesis et de l’episteme des images langagières et visuelles
Horst Bredekamp, Actes d’images comme témoignage et comme jugement
Gottfried Boehm, Par-delà le langage ? Remarques sur la logique des images

mardi 1 février 2011

You are always someone else's monster

You are always someone else's monster
Lucien Massaert

“Paraphrasing Goya's oft-quoted title "the sleep of reason engenders monsters", Derrida puts forward a variant, "reason watches over a deep sleep, in which it has a stake". Reason itself seeks a certain blindness, a certain forgetfulness. An appeal to reason will therefore not in itself prevent you from sleeping. Indeed, that sleep might well be the sleep of a monster always about to be reborn, as shown by numerous recent world events. I hope to appeal here to a wakeful reason. I shall only be aiming to effect a minute displacement in the terms of the statement which has brought us together — underlining for instance the polysemy of the concept of monster.

The argument as presented to this working group enunciates an epistemological slant on research, theory and thought. Such an epistemological slant presupposes that those who wrote or thought out the argument have some knowledge in the area of (let us say) scientific research, or theory. Based on this knowledge in scientific theory they conclude that the research or theory brought into play or produced in the arts is of a 'monstrous' nature.

This view of things at once made me think of the argument of the "methodology of artistic research" working group led by Carole Gray at the Berlin ELIA conference in 1994. This argument put forward by Carole Gray already suggested that work should focus on theories such as chaos theory, nonlinearity, the uncertainty principle, hybrid methods. All of these can only function as metaphors for the artists involved, as they are unlikely to place them within their original scientific context with anything approaching rigour.

Would anyone even think of sticking such terms to the writings of established artists from the past? Would the thinking, the reasoning, the investigations of such artists as Klee, Kandinsky, Malevich, Matisse, or closer to us, Robert Morris, Mel Bochner or Gerhard Richter, would all this research in any way profit from being dubbed chaotic, uncertain, hybrid or monstrous? Or are we to believe that a recent epistemological break separates the writings of those artists from all the interesting thinking of today?

Isn't this tantamount to a return to age-old clichés according to which art is something quirky? Mightn't ill-understood, but widely vulgarised and broadcast scientific theories such as chaos theory, with its graphic suggestions, allow a confusion with the old saw of artists' spontaneity? […]”

New Practices - New Pedagogies A Reader
Editors: Malcolm Miles
Routledge, UK