ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

I was disappointed with the reader responses to ¡°Lines of investigation¡± and ¡°Opus versus output¡±, your articles about artistic practice as research (7 March). Of the two professors emeritus numbered among your three correspondents, John Radford expresses something closest to what I had in mind: but his commitment to a disciplinarity pursued ¡°at the highest level¡± fails to acknowledge the difficulties with that notion when it comes to art practice (¡°Artistic assessment¡±, Letters, 14 March).

In his editorial on 7 March, John Gill refers to a myth - that of creation or creativity - by adding to that myth himself: ¡°There was a time¡­when art was art and research was research.¡± In ¡°Lines of investigation¡±, Malcolm Quinn, associate dean of research at the University of the Arts London, suggests that for the kind of research at stake, the ¡°British system offers an opportunity to think through what it means to be an artist in the university¡±. I suspect this niche opportunism sits ill with Radford¡¯s call to expand both the conception of research and what universities are charged with in promoting it.

On the other hand, as someone with a background in university lecturing in the art and design sector, I would firmly reject the path towards increasing professionalism, including the professional doctorate as the criterion of choice (advocated by Andrew McGettigan in his letter).

There is a kind of art practice that is far more radical than the sphincter-related celebrity of Daniel Ploeger or the shape-shifting of Roberta Mock. It is implicit in Nicholas Till¡¯s assertion in ¡°Opus versus output¡± that higher education institutions need ¡°proficient and experienced practitioners¡±. It is a practice that challenges the official apparatus of research and its agenda at root. It is teaching.

Michael Marshall
London