Is the post-structuralist position really that the ‘work must speak for itself’? I always thought that the post-structuralist position was that: the ‘author’ is a function of criticism—it is a construct that enables certain interpretations; so the ‘author’ is, then, as much a construct as the work; so ‘author’ claims have no truth value.

But, given that post-structuralism places ‘truth values’ in crisis, this does not suggest that the ‘work’ should ’speak for itself’, but that the critic must attend to their role in the construction of the ‘work’—the ‘death of the author’ is not (or not only) the death of the subject (he/she did this/that), but the de-centring of subjectivity—the ‘he/she’ is as much a product of the process as the work. Finally, the critic is not immune—the ’subject’ of the critic is as much an effect of ‘working’ as the author’s ’subject’. What’s left—once the ‘work’, the ‘author’, and the ‘critic’ are stripped out—is an ongoing process.

All this might still refuse the question raised—’what was/is your starting point? How did your interest start?’—and lead to the kind of contradiction indicated. But only if that question was already framed with a—’and when “your” is mentioned, what is meant is “you” as an already given, prior subject’.

But that hasn’t (I’m guessing) been said. So, there are a number of options available to the post-structuralist position—it could be assumed that such a framing has indeed occurred (such an assumption seems to be running in the post) and a critique of that assumption could be made. That, it seems to me, is where Althusser would operate: a kind of ideology critique, where the assumption from the questioner is placed into crisis.

But, the question itself could be radically opened—perhaps a post-structuralist position was already assumed when the question was raised. Could it not call to attention the constructed nature of the project AND the doctoral candidate. That NEITHER are prior to the research, and that NEITHER are simply ‘given’.

Such a re-framing of the question would open both theoretical and pedagogical possibilities. On a theoretical level, it might remind the researcher that to go back to the beginning is not to find the ‘origin’, but to afford the process of research primacy—allowing for the ’start’ point to re-enter a circuit so (and assuming the question doesn’t just receive a blank stare from the podium!) in answering the question, the ’start’ is re-posed, re-articulated, perhaps even dis-articulated from original suppositions, and therefore transformed—it isn’t the same start!

On the pedagogical level, it might remind the researcher that they are not ‘alone’—even in their ’starting point’! The question could remind that ‘we’ are engaged with ‘others’—supervisors, colleagues, institutions, technologies, discourses, networks, etc.—in a continuous process of construction. The very posing of the question is then as much a ‘reminder’ to the researcher that they are participating in something wider, as it is a prompt for the researcher to remind the questioner what the hell it is they are going on about…

Thanks for this perspective on favelas. I appreciate your scrutiny of those points which seem easy to ignore or take for granted. It is particularly interesting to realize that these high-rise buildings are a very different gated-community than the typologies we are familiar with in the midwest U.S.

http://bartlett-thinktank.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/IMG_20100824_114852-shophouse.jpg

NB people interested in all this would greatly enjoy the movie ‘UTOPIA LONDON’
Dir. Tom Cordell, 2010, 80min
http://www.utopialondon.com/ which was shown last night at LSE. It deals with a number of key modernist buldings (mostly housing) in London and includes their original architects re-visiting. Apparently the Bartlett Film Soc is buyin a copy of it.

The death of a housing ideal:

Interesting article reflecting on the post came out today on the failure of utopian housing.

At one end of the discussion is the failure of software:
“Software, not hardware; people, not buildings; politics, not aesthetics.”

but Power points out that a pragmatic approach would be “bringing derelict and unused property back into use, converting empty commercial buildings for residential use, making sure every council property is occupied – and plugging the gaps with small-scale developments.”

the debate rages on…

On this front, the film did not disappoint. The images are fabulous, such as the foxglove blowing in the wind, slowly waltzing across the screen, in and out of the static frame. Towards the end of the film, as the narrator recounts the chronology of the global financial meltdown in September 2008, we see a lengthy shot of a spider spinning its web, as crisp in detail as you will ever see. Truly breathtaking.

While many films today are filmed in digital video before being transferred to 35mm for projection in cinemas, Keiller made Robinson in Ruins in 35mm before being digitised for distribution. In Robinson in Ruins, the narrator declares that Robinson (who apparently filmed the images we see) justified his use of 35mm because he believed photographic film would conserve longer than digital video. Despite the digitised projection, Robinson in Ruins felt like a swan song to the medium of film, which appears to be entering its final years as cinemas are increasingly concerting to digital formats.

Unlike the two previous Robinson films, there is no musical soundtrack in Robinson in Ruins, ensuring the images do not become decorative background. For all Keiller’s visual virtuosity, however, the narration was at times less carefully balanced. Some passages were too dense, packed with dates and names, while other moments were frustratingly sparse. We might blame this on Robinson’s erratic notes, but I’m tempted to say that perhaps the steam of these essay films might be running out. Many of the ideas expressed in the narration were familiar from the previous Robinson films, and some passages were directly quoted from the earlier works.

I read that this will be the final Robinson film, and let’s hope it will be. Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing. I hope Keiller will now turn to develop the work he began in his City of the Future project which culminated in a video installation at BFI Southbank in November 2007.

I also have the feeling that the artist’s project wasn’t about Barking, and although there are references to the area, these seem to be coincidental. I say this without knowing her artistic process, maybe she did get the students to go out and look at the city, but I have a suspicion that this project was more about wanting to make radical issue-based art, which refers to other art rather than a direct engagement and observation of Barking. Art that seems to be about life, but is really about making pictures.