DIEGETIC LIFE FORM AND DIEGETIC LOGIC ASSESSING IMAGE BASED by nikeborome

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 11

									DIEGETIC LIFE FORM AND
DIEGETIC LOGIC: ASSESSING
IMAGE-BASED SCHOLARSHIP
        VICTORIAN COLLEGE OF THE ARTS
        FEDERATION HALL
        MONDAY 6 JULY 2009

                           - DRAFT PROGRAM -
8:30 REGISTRATION

 9:00   Session 1:    SETTING THE SCENE                    Chair: Ian Lang
 9:05   Conference Welcome                          Richard Nile        (Murdoch)
 9:15   Conference Launch                           (TBA)               (ALTC)
 9:30   Assessing Group Work                        Greg Battye         (Canberra)
10:00   Assessing Image-based Texts                 Josko Petkovic      (Murdoch)

10:30 Morning Tea – 15 Minutes

10:45   Session 2:     CONTEXT                             Chair: Gillian Leahy
10:45   ASPERA's Peer Review Process                Leo Berkeley         (RMIT)
11:15   Australia’s Film Schools in the New World   Ian Lang             (VCA)
11:45   Knowledge and Scholarship of Creativity     Hart Cohen           (UWS)
12:15   An invigorating shake?                      Tony Dowmunt         (UK)

12:45 Lunch – 1 hour

1:45    Session 3:    STANDARDS                           Chair: Leo Berkley
1:45    Moving towards a Best Practice Mode of Assessment for Creative
        Work in Tertiary Institutions             Gillian Leahy        (UTS)
2:15    Queensland Perspective                    Nick Oughton         (Griffith)
2:45    South Australian perspective              Alison Wotherspoon (Flinders)

3.15 Afternoon Tea – 15 Minutes

3:30    Session 4:     CONUNDRUM                          Chair: Nick Oughton
3:30    From Aristotle to the Avant Garde          Nicolette Freeman   (VCA)
4:00    The Uselessness of (Digital) Literacy      Terrence Muybury (UQ)
4:30    Assessing the Future: the ERA and Creative Works
                                                   Mick Broderick      (Murdoch)
5:00     Drinks
6:00     End

                                         Abstract:
                  Assessing Group Work in Media and Communication
                                 Assoc. Prof. Greg Battye
       Associate Dean, Education , Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra

This paper describes aspects of a project funded in 2006 by the Carrick Institute for
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (now the Australian Learning and Teaching
Council (ALTC): Assessing Group Work in Media and Communication. The project
tackled a tension commonly found in teaching media production in Australian
universities between, on one hand, the importance of collaborative group work , and on
the other, negative student attitudes to one of the frequent consequences of that group
work — group assessment. Such negative attitudes stem generally from the perception
that group assessment does not reflect individual contributions and may compromise the
best students‘ chance of receiving a fair mark. The project sought to investigate ways of
ameliorating                                    the                                   issue.
 The paper summarises the approach and findings, and looks also to the already-emerging
possibilities for ASPERA to systematically assist in building on this research field, to the
benefit of both its members and their students.


                                        Abstract
                        ASSESSING IMAGE-BASED TEXTS
                                   Dr Josko Petkovic
        Conference Convenor, Director, NASS Research Centre, Murdoch University

This paper sets out the overarching agenda for this conference. Specifically it is invites
the delegates to reflect on a series of questions:
     What does it mean to write with images in academia at undergraduate, honours
        and postgraduate level?
     Can we describe image-based scholarship in a way that is consistent with the
        methodology of conventional axiomatic and objective scholarship?
     Is there something ―aesthetic‖ and subjective about image-based scholarship that
        cannot be specified by conventional means (such as pre-linguistic and musical
        unconscious, instinctive phenomenological poetics, schizological, genealogical
        elements and more)? Do we need another type of scholarship to deal with this
        subjective element of the image production and assessment?
     Can we theorize image-based scholarship as the third way of scholarship that is
        neither conventional (objective) nor aesthetic (subjective) but is a (constructivist)
        combination of both elements which, although complex to assess, is self evident
        to peers.
     Whatever answers we have for the above three questions is it possible to establish
        appropriate assessment standards and procedures. Specifically is it possible to
        establish:
          national and international guidelines for assessing screen productions.
          Can all these rules and guidelines be elegantly framed within a simple
           assessment sheet.

                                     Abstract:
                            ASPERA's Peer Review Process

                                      Leo Berkeley
                         Disciplines Head (Journalism & Media)
                           School of Applied Communication
                                    RMIT University


 The Australian Screen Production Education & Research Association (ASPERA)
conducted a process of peer review for screen works in 2008 and is repeating this in
2009. The intention with this initiative is to offer a means of recognition for academic
researchers who produce screen works as part of their research, in the same way that peer
review of research publications by academic journals legitimates the outputs of text-
based researchers. It is also hoped that the peer review process will contribute to a deeper
understanding of the still developing field of screen production as an academic research
discipline. The paper will report on the outcomes of the first peer review process and
what changes have been made for the 2009 iteration. As well as highlighting benefits that
have been identified from the process it will suggest what issues need to be addressed for
this process to be more meaningful for both the
individual academics involved (both producers and reviewers) as well as the screen
production sector as a whole.



                                        Abstract:
                      Australia's Film Schools in The New World
                                   Prof Ian Lang PhD,
                         Head, Film and TV, VCA and Music,
                                University of Melbourne

The role of film schools has changed radically in the last 40 years. Born in modernism to
serve elite students in an industrial economy, today's proliferating university-based
schools serve thousands in a digital service economy, while Australia's share of the
cinema box-office shrinks annually to less than 3%.

For the health of our sector, we need to clearly redefine to government and ourselves why
screen production education still matters. As we educate our students to become critically
reflective practitioners, we must as rigorously critique our own teaching, to ask if we
have genuinely transformed learning from the limiting assumptions of a past industrial-
era so many of us grew up with.
                                      Abstract
                              ‘An invigorating shake’?
                                   Tony Dowmunt
                       MA Screen Documentary Course Convenor
                          Goldsmiths, University of London,
                                        UK

‘An invigorating shake’?
a brief history of the UK debate around the theory and practice of doctoral work
involving the submission of audio-visual (as well as textual) elements.

       No, I have no thirst for knowing it all.
       But I know 1000 songs that I have learned in my village. Their words and
       melodies are in the deepest atoms of my body.
       Professors:
       Stand up and shake your bodies.
       An invigorating shake.
       And then stand quietly and listen.
       Can you hear any songs coming back from the depths of your flesh?
       (Mekas 1991: 119)

Jonas Mekas wrote this in 1947, before he emigrated to the US and became an
experimental filmmaker in New York. It suggests the importance of different ways of
knowing, of ‗alternative epistemologies‘, that lie at the heart of the discussion about
‗practice research‘ in moving image and sound work.

Started in September 2005, AVPhD is a UK based training and support network for all
those doing, supervising and examining audio-visual practice based doctorates. The
practice research projects covered include (but are not restricted to) documentary, fiction,
narrative/non-narrative film, and non-linear/new media.I have been involved with
AVPhD from the beginning, and in this talk I will summarise the main areas of our
discussions over the last few years. I will try to illuminate in what ways, the Academy in
the UK has been ‗shaken‘ - or at least stirred – by these new practices.


Tony Dowmunt is a Senior Lecturer and the Course Convenor for MA Screen
Documentary at Goldsmiths, University of London, UK. For much of his working life he
worked as documentary producer, and from 2003-2006 he had an Arts and Humanities
Research Council Fellowship in the Creative and Performing Arts, which included the
production of an experimental video-diary, 'A Whited Sepulchre'. He was a founder
member, and is on the Steering Group of AVPhD, an AHRC funded training and support
network for all those doing, supervising and examining audio-visual practice based
doctorates.
                                    Abstract
Moving towards a Best Practice Mode of Assessment for Creative Work in Tertiary
                                  Institutions
                       Associate Professor, Gillian Leahy
          Media Arts and Production, University of Technology, Sydney

This paper argues that it is possible to establish national and international guidelines for
assessing screen production works, group work, peer review standards, festival and
publication standards and to equate these standards with more conventional scholarly
outputs. The paper will compare and contrast criteria being used to assess creative work
at four universities currently. The paper will examine the criteria and marking guidelines
used for creative student work at Honours, Masters and PhD level. The criteria form The
University of Technology, Sydney, the College of Fine Arts, University of New South
Wales, Griffith University and Macquarie University will be collated and compared in
tabular form where suitable. These criteria will also be compared to the Australian
Research Council‘s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative criteria and
methods for identifying quality in creative practice research. From this synthesis a model
will be formulated for criteria to be used for assessing creative works, and in particular
screen based works.


                                     Abstract
                     Knowledge and a Scholarship of Creativity
                          Associate Professor, Hart Cohen
             School of Communication Arts , University of Western Sydney

In recent years, there have a number of university graduates from degree programs that
have made a media arts practice form part of the scholarly work towards the fulfilment of
a higher degree. The numbers of students engaging in either a hybrid PhD or MA by
research (part written and part arts practice) or a Doctor of Creative Arts (3/4 practice-
based and ¼ written or exegesis) is rising rapidly. Despite this, there remains a dearth of
writing on practice-based research, on the relationship between scholarly values of
research to an arts practice and the specific forms of progressive assessment and
examination that are appropriate to this endeavour. These concerns necessarily involve
the teaching practices of students in the arts – ones that have steadily migrated from the
independent art school to the academy (tertiary institution or university). This paper
addresses both the teacher and student roles involved in a practice-based research
approach to a higher degree, reviews the relevant literature in this field and then
addresses these concerns through both theoretical discussion and the demonstration of
problems and practices through case studies. These focus on practitioner-based accounts
by scholars following an arts practice. In particular I will review the community
engagement research agenda and an emergent model for community television within the
context of our School of Communication Arts, University of Western Sydney.
In this way the scholarship of creativity can be defined as a scholarship that renders it
alongside other forms of scholarship in the academy while demonstrating the unique
characteristics that a media arts practice contributes to the production of knowledge.


Dr Hart Cohen is Associate Professor in Media Arts in the School of Communication Arts at the
University of Western Sydney, Australia. He is Associate Head of School and directs Research
and Postgraduate Studies. Professor Cohen has directed two Australian Research Council Projects
related to the Strehlow Collection held at the Strehlow Research Centre in Alice Springs. The
current project is an online database documentary http://heuristscholar.org/cocoon/heurist-
test/browser/item-exp/88353/related to TGH Strehlow‘s memoire, Journey to Horseshoe Bend.
Two films have been made in relation to these projects: ―Mr. Strehlow‘s Films‖ (SBSI 2001) and
Cantata Journey (ABC TV 2006). Hart Cohen co-edited a special issue of Media International
Australia on the theme of Digital Anthropology (MIA 116 August 2005) and is currently co-
author of Screen Media Arts: An Introduction to Concepts and Practices for Oxford University
Press (2009) and an editor of the Global Media Journal (Australian Edition)
http://stc.uws.edu.au/gmjau/about_gmj.html.




                                      Abstract
 From Aristotle to the Avant Garde – the conundrum of assessing creative work in
                          the context of wider academia.

  -Nicolette Freeman, Senior Lecturer, Film and Television, Faculty of VCA and Music,
                               University of Melbourne

In his 1975 essay, The Question of Poetic Form, Hayden Carruth defiantly confronted the
‗father of dramatic theory. ―…What about Aristotle?‖ he asked, ―He was no poet; far
from it. … He wrote about art from the point of view not of the artist but of the spectator,
the playgoer….This is interesting and useful, and from it certain ideas may be
extrapolated about the work itself, the play. But about playwriting, about art as process?
No…... A real theory of art begins with the process…A spurious theory of art begins
somewhere else and tries to explain everything‖.
Does the assessment of final work only, from an Aristotlean point of view, without regard
for process, lead to ‗spurious theories‘? Is assessment of the creative process that leads to
the final work more helpful and appropriate to the content of our courses, and our
judgement of whether learning has taken place?
Is focus on the experiment, the development of the argument, rather than on the result
alone, more aligned to assessment in wider academia?
Richard Kostelanetz, in Avante-Garde (1973 – 78) exclaims ―Avant-garde writing
resembles experimental science in that both incorporate, to quote my Websters ―an action
or process undertaken to discover something not yet known‖…. Francis Bacon, the father
of experimental science, noted in The New Organon (1620): ―It would be unsound and
self contradictory to expect things which have never been done can be done except by
means which have never been tried‖. (my italics).
So to reward work that breaks new ground, that re-defines the field, that compels the
assessors to re-design their rubrics, we are talking about work that uses language in
inventive and unanticipated ways – that defies our assessment criteria and standards.
How can such work be assessed?
As Kostelanetz says, ―Art and science also share the principle that the most consequential
experiments are those which are acknowledged by at least some peers….and one
practical measure of the value of a current experiment is its capacity to inspire further
experiment……I was unable to think of any step-ahead artistic experiment that did not
eventually have some sort of perceptible impact upon future art.‖
If there is ‗perceptible impact‘ we should be able to identify it when we see it. But
perhaps it is to the experimental process, rather than the final result, that we should be
focusing our assessing eyes and ears, and devising some transferable criteria and
standards that will be acknowledged by wider academia and also be relevant to original,
creative thinking and work.


                                       Abstract
                          The Uselessness of (Digital) Literacy
                       Terrence Maybury, University of Queensland

        ‗Digital literacy‘, ‗multimedia literacy‘, ‗information literacy‘, even ‗l(IT)eracy‘,
are a host of terms that have come to prominence with the rise of the computer in an
effort to categorise the skill set necessary for the operation of this highly adaptable
electronic technology. The commonality is, of course, ‗literacy‘ and it is the use of this
term ‗literacy‘ in electronically mediated contexts that this presentation calls into
question. The protocols for assessing those students learning audio-visual production are
literate in orientation. Assessment objectives and criteria are also detailed in an
alphabetic form. Even a script is first and foremost a word object, no matter if it takes the
form of a synopsis, a treatment, a proposal, or a full draft. Indeed, the whole tertiary
academic structure is based around literate, textually fixated protocols. The fact is that the
analogue technology of the pen, paper and typewriter has evolved into the digital
electronic technology of the computer. This monumental transition from the literate era to
an electrate era, or as Gregory Ulmer calls it, a shift from ‗literacy to electracy‘, is also
one that requires a wholesale re-examination of how image based scholarship is assessed.
After questioning this dominance of literacy in assessment protocols, ‗The Uselessness of
(Digital) Literacy‘ then discusses various aspect of electracy that might help in this re-
examination: multimodality, technacy, associative reasoning as opposed to logical or
sequential reasoning, spatial versus temporal emphases in electronic communication,
expert taxonomies versus folksonomies, amateur and professional issues. This embryonic
program for electracy might then allow us to reconstruct a more mobile, heuristic method
for assessing image based scholarship, rather than the more static, sovereign even
didactic form of scaffolding that is so typical of literate assessment protocols.
                                        Abstract:

                 Assessing the Future: the ERA and Creative Works

                        Associate Professor Mick Broderick,
     Research Coordinator, School of Media Communication and Culture, Murdoch
                                     University

This presentation outlines the opportunities afforded to practice-led researchers by having
creative works recognized under the new ERA regime. It will describe the post-RQF
environment of ‗publication‘ data collection and how each institution is required to
report, collect and make accessible their digital repositories for external peer review. It
will also describe the strategic importance of Fields of Research codes and well-crafted
Research Statements for cross-institutional comparison and the implications for future
research and pedagogy.




                    Australian Learning and Teaching Council
                                       and
         Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association
                                    PROJECT
                                 CONFERENCE

 DIEGETIC LIFE FORMS AND DIEGETIC LOGIC:
   ASSESSING IMAGE-BASED SCHOLARSHIP

                                 Monday 6 July 2009
                       Victorian College of the Arts, Melbourne
                         What does it mean to write with images?

  What kind of creative logic is at play when each image may well contain thousands of
                                         ―words‖?

What makes this multidimensional, diegetic and lifelike communication so efficient and
                                   so powerful?




Screen production programmes are commonplace in Australian Universities. They are a
major component of the tertiary creative arts sector, which now constitutes around 7 per
cent of the total student population in Australia.

Producing image-based texts does not fit neatly into the conventional paradigm of
scholarship which for the most part continues to be based on empirical, scientific and
written conventions. Indeed, for many years image-making was viewed as the outcome of
an artistic activity which was generally considered to be subjective and thus difficult to
measure and evaluate.

The assessment status of an image-based text is further complicated by the group nature
of screen production. A functioning crew may consist of many ―authors‖ working
together at a different level of performance (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate,
professionals, performers) and often under the supervision and overriding guidance of an
academic staff member.

While there is considerable flexibility in assessing specific mechanical and technical
skills, the problem of assessment becomes more complicated when assessing the value of
the creative work as a whole. At this level, all the processes that give rise to the image-
based text come under scrutiny. Further, the differences between the diegetic/visual mode
of ―writing‖ and conventional academic writing become unavoidable and problematic
when we consider stand-alone image texts without any written components. Problems of
assessing at this level bring into question existing academic regulations, notions of
authorship, validation procedures, concepts of originality, and even the very notion of
academic practice.


In this context the following questions and strategies arise:

   1. Can we describe image-based scholarship in a way that is consistent with the
      methodology of conventional axiomatic and objective scholarship? Generally,
      some elements of image production are very conventional - researching the
      project-topic for example (with its central research question, hypothesis, clear
      premises, reasoned argument based on evidence). Can this conventional
      scholarship framework be extended to the image-based scholarship as a whole
         including assessment?

   2. Is there something ―aesthetic‖ and subjective about image-based scholarship that
       cannot be specified by conventional means (such as pre-linguistic and musical
       unconscious, instinctive phenomenological poetics, schizological, genealogical
       elements and more)? Do we need another type of scholarship to deal with this
       subjective element of the image production and assessment?

   3. Can we theorize image-based scholarship as the third way of scholarship that is
       neither conventional (objective) nor aesthetic (subjective) but is a (constructivist)
       combination of both elements which, although complex to assess, is self evident
       to peers.

   4. Whatever answers we have for the above three questions is it possible to establish
      appropriate assessment standards and procedures along the lines of existing
      ASPERA guidelines (http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/nass/nass_news_aspri.htm)

         Specifically is it possible to establish:

            national and international guidelines for assessing screen production works?
            national and international guidelines for assessing group work?
            national and international guidelines for peer review standards?
            Academic guidelines for assessing festival/publication quality and standards?
            comparative guidelines for comparison with conventional scholarly outcomes
             such as authored books, chapters, articles etc.?

   5. Can all these rules and guidelines be elegantly framed within a simple assessment
      sheet.

Papers (conventional or non-conventional) are now invited for this one-day conference.
Deadline for 150-300 words Abstract is 30 April 2009. In-depth papers are welcomed
although each conference presentation is likely to be around 20-30 minutes in duration
including questions and discussion.

A selection of these (conventional or non-conventional) papers will be published in 2009
                 NASS issue of IM: Interactive Media refereed e-journal:

                 http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/nass/nass_im_ejournal.htm

          All papers will be included in the Project Report at the completion of the
                 ALTC/ASPERA Project associated with this conference.

            All inquiries and correspondence should be directed to:

                                      Project Manager
                                  Linda Butcher
                           l.butcher@murdoch.edu.au
   This conference is the final component of the Media Arts Congress which starts on
                                  Saturday 4 July 2009.



           Media Arts Congress
                                 4 July2009
                          Media Art Scoping Study
                           Vital Signs: Revisited
                          http://mass.nomad.net.au

                              5 July 2009
                       Combined Roundtable Forum
                            Imaging Futures


                               6 July 2009
                 Diegetic Life Forms and Diegetic Logic
                   Assessing Image-based Scholarship
Conference delegates will be able to attend events on the other two days and will be
invited to actively participate in ―Imaging Futures‖ Combined Roundtable Forum.

								
To top