the image of my mate Chris handing in the stinking head of a withdrawing addict as his thesis made me crack up. It reminded me of an essay I read by Bruno Latour called “visualisation and cognition - thinking with eyes and hands” or something to that effect. He writes about Darwin’s amazing voyages. Apparently Darwin returned from his travels with shedloads of botanical and animal specimens. These specimens alone were not enough to prove to the world his theory of evolution. He had to create a pathway through them, pointing to this one and that one, weaving them together so a convincing story was told which led to the idea of evolution. He did this through writing.

Mayhem, thanks for laying out two sides of the argument, each equally convinciongly, in two separate comments. Reminds me of your keen participation in the “great escape” scenario in The Sham (your classic phrase “fam or sham” which I have laughed over so many times).

I agree that academic writing is a kind of composition. Thanks for reminding me of that. It’s mainly this idea of thinking of art as “research” and the drive for the generation of “knowledge” that are stumping me… How much is sufficient to present as a contribution to knowledge?

your mate chris wouldn’t hand to his supervisors a halitosis-breathing, twitching, screaming ice head as his thesis - as much time as he’s spent with the likes of them (and as excellent example as she/he would be of the symptoms of withdrawl). he hands in a 80,000-word break-down of the whole process, findings etc, etc, etc.

and maybe it’s the same for bilateral - while blogging appears to take the form of the thesis (in its use of words/language/text/etc) and would make an excellent example, the point of a thesis (she says, currently thesis-less) seems to be to detach from the research (practice) and discuss it, in written form. not an easy job.

plus - given that, on your mission which you have chosen to accept, you have to simultaneously blog, as an element of art practice, in one form of writing AND remove yourself from that process/style/rhythm of writing and develop an exegesis critiquing that process/style/rhythm in another form of writing. all while keeping your head in some kind of order. or not.

i’d say your PhD is much more difficult than Chris’. He just has to be a pharmacologist and a writer. You, however, have to be a writer A AND a writer B and NOT a writer B when you’re being a writer A (and of course vice versa). infinitely more difficult.

having said all that, of course you’re going to kick arse and please keep posting your ‘notes’ on here - they’re awesome.