Symposium Reflections

After a semester long attending research seminars, the EMPA Honours students were presented with an opportunity to let their research shine. Stumbling in out of the rain the theatre almost appeared bare as the drop out rate became apparent. Without trying to create a divide the English students perched themselves to the right as the Media and Performing Arts students casually collected the back row. A move to integrate initiated on day two failed as the English students opted for safer terrain with their compatriots.

Klara opened the seminar and her casual performance made the whole process look less daunting but her carefully structured thesis outline on masculinities in Latvian film left a few of us worried – Had we done enough?

Noni’s Marxist performance left us with little desire for the sugary goodness Coke provides, presenting an oppositional approach to Coke’s image. The stunning red dress, the colour of Coke, was in opposition as she sat alone, flat, unanimated and depressed.

Nick’s stimulus and response presentation investigated the feedback system of interactive performance. The sensorial experience toyed with the idea of birth – the birth of the cyborg.

Heroin addiction is a mixed bag of extreme elation and catastrophic lows and Milana investigated this experience on screen. Like the drug the screen image is attractive for some and spectatorship becomes paramount in her investigation.

Sarah-Jane’s gendering loss on screen presented the fall of the woman as she relinquishes her child and the differences in representation for the man.

Patrick and the acousmatic gave sound a voice in film where the image has nearly always been privileged. The existence of a being or monster is played out through sound without ever actually having appeared on screen.

Rodney and his political cartoons opened up a can of worms for the audience trying to understand the relationship between power and control, and war time propaganda. Disney profiteering from a cause he never believed in is a story worth telling.

Zabrina got our toes tapping with her presentation on the rise of the musical television series Glee. A highly interactive television series, Glee proposes a neat case study on the effects of digital consumerism.

Emma Maye delighted us with her feminist performance on gendered violence. Highly entertaining, drawing on modes of performance such as Vaudeville, the representation resonated with the atrocities of recent female gang rape by footballers.

Darren shifted our attention with the small shifts in media ecologies. He presented us with actor-network theory suggesting the slight technological changes are just as, if not more, important to theorize as the large ones.

Following on, Andrew presented the implications for anonymity amongst Internet users. The pros and cons of remaining anonymous on the Internet are highlighted by the glory of wanting to be identified when the anonymous impacts the world. These are the many contradictions of the growing media environment.

Jessica’s light in urban space presentation accounted for light as a precious substance which is taken for granted in public urban space. The proposed case study on Vivid Sydney presents an interesting investigation as the protest against the festival layers politics over art.

Recurring media panics are the crux of Anushka’s argument, determining how the media and the public perpetuate panic on the Internet.

Kyle lightened the day with his comical imagery of the traditional gamer and presented the theatre with the new exergamer – the convergence of the gamer and the exerciser. Kyle investigates how the Wii Fit is changing the gamer’s future and fighting the obesity epidemic.

Katie’s exploration of love and faith highlights the complexities of the modern world with the varied religions and spiritualities that occupy our planet. Can the notion of love know no bounds when it comes to crossing paths with faith? Are we blinded by the illusion of love?

As Katie left a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts it was time for me to present the importance of theorizing distribution for the Australian film industry.

And then our task was done.

The symposium presented an interesting two days where the crossover between the coursework classes became apparent. Attending those research seminars really did pay off – not just in terms of trying to decipher theory but also for presentation techniques. I can’t help but wonder what the English students were doing while we toddled off to seminars after a hard days work?

Opening Up Re-enactment for Film Theory - Megan Carrigy

When Megan Carrigy presented her seminar on Opening up Re-enactment for Film Theory, she considered the re-enactment as a self-reflexive performance of reference. This notion is interesting in its acknowledgement of the staged re-construction and its historical viability in presentation. Carrigy explored the dynamics of reproduction whilst also examining the techniques of film re-enactments, as they have since been adopted and integrated as norms of narrative cinema. In essence, Carrigy’s seminar sought to elucidate her research approach by introducing a strategic positioning of the re-enactment through its operation in the past and governing lineage, and the progression that has secured its place in the contemporary cinematic sphere. This progression has since seen the re-enactment encompass validation of indexicality, as she suggested through the example of CSI, whilst presenting the form as an act of drawing attention to re-enactment.

Although re-enactment has been heavily presented as a naïve form, it is the techniques that were pioneered in film re-enactment that paved a successful path for narrative cinema. With reference to Mary Ann Doane, Carrigy gave the example of continuity editing where the temporal necessity of concealing cuts in the re-enactment was then able to cross over in delivering a seamless, more real sense of the narrative.

Historically, the re-enactment served to draw people closer to action that they otherwise would not have exposure to. As Carrigy suggested, re-enactment serves to dramatise and explicate a more real experience, regardless of the content’s validity. She spoke of these concepts in considering the early film re-enactments from 1898-1907 particularly in regards to the war and the reconstituted newsreels that delivered a sense of action and immediacy to the home front. With these earlier film re-enactments bearing an unapologetic representation of a skewed or embellished truth, Carrigy’s research saw the consumption of re-enactment aligning with Tom Gunning’s ‘cinema of attractions.’ The exhibitionism of foregrounding drama in the ‘real’ therefore attracts its audience not only by its topicality, but primarily through the techniques employed to tease out spectatorial engagement.

As Carrigy suggested initially, art theory and performance studies have presided over the development of the re-enactment across time. Artists have staged their re-constructions of events or elements of history, and these representations have found performance in multiple capacities, some including live history performances, tourism features, commemorative ceremonies, biopics and reality television. The performative value of re-enactment has, however, proved problematic in terms of the factual value for historians. The place of tradition and question of truth has been inclined to prolong this tension, although historians in contemporary contexts are tending to recognise their value on a number of levels and as a means by which their research can possibly be informed. A struggle remains in defining what exactly the re-enactment is and its associated etymology, but the acknowledgement of re-enactment as performance of pre-existing events has signalled the form sans a denial of theatricality. That said, Carrigy also acknowledged the tension of re-enactment in its position between two agendas: the foregrounding of theatricality and repetition in representation.

Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking the storm in King Lear

Jennifer Hamilton is a PHD student exploring the use of storms as a narrative device in Shakespeare. In this seminar Hamilton gives examples of her work by using King Lear and Sarah Kane’s 1995 play Blasted. She utilises Speech Act Theory and Ecocriticism and tries to explain the way the storm is treated as a metaphoric significant within a narrative. Speech Act Theory argues that the words we speak are not merely words. It seeks to find the connections between the words being used and the nature of how they are being spoken. The meaning of the spoken expressions can be explained in terms of the rules governing their use in performing various speech acts. She states the poetic function of a storm has come to the point of cliché and can tend towards being arbitrary rather than integral. Hamilton gives a close reading of King Lear to investigate the way Lear’s experience of the storm’s chaos is acted out through the narrative structure of the play.
Certain King Lear Adaptations tend to focus on specific Shakespearean ecologies. The use of the storm in King Lear adaptations will often take on either a literal or a metaphoric use. Traditional studies of King Lear tend to use a Pathetic Fallacy in the analysis of the storm (pathetic in this context meaning capable of feeling) by reflecting Lear’s mood into an inanimate object whereas Hamilton is trying to look at the storm as an “object rather than a thing.
She also uses Blasted to show the relationship between a meterological metaphor and the structure of a narrative. After the first and second scenes set in a hotel in Leeds the set is literally blasted apart to reform in a Bosnian warzone as the sound of summer rain is heard in the background. At the end of each subsequent scene the sound of spring, autumn and winter rain is heard. Hamilton argues that Kane is evoking a “broader environmental ecology” at the end of each scene. A way of soothing the pain from the intense subject matter.
Broadly put Ecocriticism is reading texts from an environmental viewpoint. Ecocriticism looks at the underlying ecological values within a given text and the way nature or the environment is uses in either a literal or metaphoric sense. Hamilton’s work is searching for an ecological understanding and in the case of King Lear how the storm is structured in order to provide a particular narrative. It is not only taking the obvious example of Lear’s descent into madness connected with the storm but also the way certain speech acts within the play are connected to the role of the storm. Whilst she does see the storm as an event she is taking some minor ideas from Actor Network Theory by placing agency in the non human of the storm.
In other work Hamilton explores the discourse of climate change and how it changes poetic representation in relation to the weather. She uses her literary background to engage with people from scientific and engineering backgrounds in order to greater a greater discourse surround the issues of climate change and how that can relate back to the specific fields of science, technology and the arts.

Richard Smith – Space and Action and the Anterior Field

Dr. Richard Smith (University of Sydney) investigated the temporal and spacial nature of film by utilising Billy Wilder’s 1945 film “The Lost Weekend”. Smith argues that Wilder placed heavy importance of action and the mechanics of the actor within and outside the anterior field. The way Wilder constructs his shots allows the main character Don Birnam to interact with the time and space and Wilder adopts a comic nature towards action in the film. Birnam is both a writer who drinks and a drinker who writes and Smith argues that Wilder locaters the action within this writer/drinker relationship.
Smith showed the opening scene to demonstrate these ideas. In it we can see the disequilibrium between hand and face. Birnam’s hands are reaching outside the anterior field and his hand is calling for the bottle of rum he craves. Instead of thinking with his fingers, his fingers are outside his thinking. This particular division generates the montage for the entire film. The imposture within the opening scene is carried on throughout. Smith argues that the very first show we see of Birnam the action being played out emphasises the constant battle between drinker and writer.

This movement of the hands and movement of the lips is a total automation of the face and body emphasising the auto. The Lost Weekend stands outside the classic paradigm of American action cinema because the in The Lost Weekend action is falsification.
Richard Smith uses studies on the Anterior Field to see the nature of the temporal paradox within the Lost Weekend. This is a movie that is full of conflicts, parallel divisions and infinite loops. The action never restores identity. Don Birnam is a writer who keeps forgetting he is a drinker and a drinker who keeps remembering he is a writer. However we never see much writing or drinking within the film. We only ever see Birnam wanting a drink or having had a drink. This plays out as a temporal paradox. Once the drinker features the screen fades to black and we wake to the face of the writer who wakes lost in time. Action never restores identity. The action of bringing the hand to the lips becomes its own form of writing that needs no typewriter. Birnam the writer is only a writer when he is drinking and Birnam the drinker is only a drinker when he is writing. Smith calls this constant conflict between Birnam’s two minds or personas a “geometry of the false”. The more the images divide, the more they unify. This is a “reconciliation of opposites”. The different don’s are like different gestures which are then reflected on to different sets of actions. This is most apparent in the opening scene where we view Birnam packing his suitcase for a holiday. His hands are focused on the clothes in front of him while his eyes are staring past the camera to the bottle of rum that is hanging outside the window.

EMPA SEMINAR -

Jennifer Hamilton

Cosmic Ecology: rethinking the storm in King Lear

500 word response

Jennifer Hamilton seems to still be teasing out the way she will be framing her PhD object, the storm in King Lear. During the seminar she referred to various theories that she was using to look at the storm as an event rather than a thing. The first theory to be mentioned was speech act theory that she is using to explore the events leading up to the storm in Lear. She described Cordelia’s reply to her father “Nothing my Lord” as an illocutionary act[1]. The intent or illocutionary force[2] behind those words was that that led to the rearrangement of Lear’s kingdom and thus consequently the turmoil, the storm that followed his decision.

Another theory used by Hamilton is performance theory, using it to analyse and write about how the storm is staged and how to understand its theatrical meaning. She briefly mentioned various productions of King Lear and how each director had had his or her own interpretation of how the storm should be represented, going into finer detail of Bell Shakespeare’s production where the actor playing Lear was made to walk as if he was in the middle of a ferocious storm.

Dramatic ecology was the next theory to be mentioned which is the theory of embedding the natural and cultural together. However she spoke of how sometimes this can lead to “green” readings of texts which she wanted to avoid such as the “green” reading that the storm was mother nature taking revenge on western society. To try and avoid this she said she found Felix Guattari’s work 3 Ecologies extremely helpful. In this work Guattari states that now more than ever nature cannot be separated from culture that we had to start thinking transversally. Hamilton has then applied this concept to her work thinking about how the storm (nature) and the people (culture) in the play are inextricably linked, that they exist transversally; each is present and affects each other’s worlds.

A theory that may be taken up in the future by Hamilton is the actor network theory. This assumption is made due to her excitement when Stephen Meucke suggested this theory as a way of looking at the storm as an ‘actor’ in its own right, as something whose ‘competence is deduced from its performance’.[3] This way of looking at the storm perhaps will bring the storm out of the pages of Shakespeare’s text and bring life to it, looking at every performance as a development of its existence; how has the storm performed through the ages impacting on the lives of the characters? Perhaps as well she could engage in the writing way suggested by Meucke. Instead of interpreting the world she could write as if she and the world are co-becoming[4], which seems to fit in quite well with the dramatic ecology theory encouraging to think transversally. However approaching the storm as an ‘actant’ may make it a thing rather than event. It did seem, however, that she had not yet completely clarified her understanding of the difference between a thing and an event. Perhaps she should read Latour’s ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’ to help her come to some concrete decisions on their differences.

---

[1] ‘Speech Act Theory’, Changing Minds. Org, viewed 18^th May 2010, http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/speech_act.htm

[2] ibid.

[3] Muecke, S, ‘Beyond Actor Network Theory: Latour and Political Ecology’, Lecture Notes, Wednesday April 14^th 2010.

[4] Ibid.

Cosmic Ecology – Jennifer Hamilton

In her paper, Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking The Storm in King Lear, Jennifer Hamilton argues that the storm in King Lear acts as a dramatic device that results in a literal ecology within the Shakespearean text. It is the generation of this ecology that accounts for the structural principles of the narrative. By employing an eco-critical methodology, Hamilton is able to treat characters in the play as being part of a complex ecology, establishing a cultural ecology of the drama. She wishes to draw the idea of the storm away from a metaphor that focuses around the inner turmoil of the character King Lear. Even though the character of Lear does attract the audiences’ main attention Hamilton argues that the storm is autonomous from this. To further exemplify the power of the storm, an analysis into the play Blast by Sarah Kane - drawing comparisons between the scene altering blast and the storm as an event that causes change. Furthermore, both events are explored by as an encouragement to use more than just visual senses as both the storm and the blast are blinding. Hamilton argues that in order to understand the social and ecological one must use other senses beyond the visual, incorporating touch, taste and even smell.

Using an ecological perspective allows for an analysis of the relationship between cultural and nature. As Felix Guattari states, “now more than ever, nature cannot be separated from culture”. In saying that, a hybridity of nature and cultural has not develop, but rather a system of networked relations between the two. Both co-exist in an ecology. It is this perspective that Hamilton’s paper attempts to generate. The storm exists with in the narrative ecology of King Lear and co-exists with the other characters.

An interesting comment made after the paper was delivered was the comparison between Hamilton’s eco-critical approach and actor-network theory. With this is mind it is possible to view the storm as a non-human actor, co-existing with other actants with in the network of the narrative. Viewing Hamilton’s argument this way means that the storm and its relation to the actors does not focus on the storm as part of nature, or even the actors as human. This is not the hierarchy that Hamilton wishes to prescribe to. Rather, the storm in relation to others can be viewed in relationships that are stronger or weaker than others. Knowing this it makes much more sense to see the interactions between Lear and the storm as the focal point of Hamilton’s discussion. However, Hamilton does mention other players in King Lear, such as Cordelia, her avowing to ‘nothing’ and the representations of this through the storm. Furthermore, the creating of such a network means that the way that each participating string relate needs to be re-established and reproduce in a new network. This relates to what Hamilton mentioned about how the storm is staged in different presentations – from a grey backdrop with a Lear practicing mimicry or a more literately filmic representation with an emphasis on the storm as a physical force of nature. Viewing the storm this way, means that it can be read as a single event, or rather participant in the play, that is able to modify the way the play is read through it’s relation to the other participants of King Lear.

Jennifer Hamilton and Ecocriticism

In her lecture “Cosmic Ecology; Rethinking the Storm in King Lear” Jennifer Hamilton outlined her use of ecocriticism as her critical reading practise. Hamilton’s lecture focused on Shakespeare’s King Lear and Blasted, a reinterpretation of King Lear by Sarah Kane. Ecocriticism is concerned with the relationship between eco systems and society, nature and culture. Using ecocritical methodology Hamilton explores what she refers to as “the dramatic ecology” of King Lear. Quoting Barker to justify her use of eco criticism she stated that the storm in King Lear is not incidental but an integral aspect of the play’s makeup.

Ecocriticism is not to be confused with a “green” reading practise. Green readings tend to focus conflict between nature and humanity; a traditional green reading of King Lear would conclude that the storm is nature taking its revenge on humanity. Ecocriticism does not focus on a hierarchy or power play; rather it explores how the natural world and humanity influence each other. When reading King Lear Hamilton examines the impact the storm has on the human subjects. Hamilton said that a level of “ critical synesthesia” is required to engage with eco criticism. Hamilton focuses on the physical sensations of being in a storm. As blindness is a feature of the storm scene Hamilton explores the other sensations a storm can provoke in humans and considers how these influence the dramatic arc of the scene.

In an ecocritical reading of a play, references to the natural world are not read as being background information for the audience or directorial suggestions. The natural world becomes an integral feature of a play’s narrative. Hamilton gave the use of rain in Blasted as an example of an ecocritical interpretation of a stage direction. In Blasted the scenes end with descriptions of seasonal rain, for example “ spring rain’. In an ecocritical reading, the sound of rain is not merely background information for the audience. The story line of Blasted is erratic, making unrealistic jumps in place and time. The rain positions the dramatic action in space and time. Hamilton argues that the sound of rain provides a counterweight to the irrational story line by contrasting it with the ‘rational cyclical natural world”. The sound of rain makes the fantastic believable.

Early in her lecture Hamilton quoted Donna Haraway, who called for artists to find a new way of representing nature and humanity, one which does not show the two as being in opposition. Ecocriticism answers this call by considering the constantly shifting interactions between humans and their environments. Ecocriticism focuses on the agency of the natural world, thus the storm in King Lear or the rain in Blasted are not supplements to the dramatic action but dramatic actions in their own right, one audience member suggested that ecocriticism casts the storm in King Lear as an independent character. The strength of ecocriticism lies in its ability to shift nature from being an object to a subject allowing the critic to give the same level of attention to the complexities and contradictions of nature as they do to humanity.

Why Feminism Matters: Laughing At What Is Ridiculous, Not Laughing At What Is Not

Arts Matters Forum: WHY FEMINISM MATTERS

Monday 22^nd March 2010 6:30pm Seymour Centre/ York Theatre

If there is one thing I came away with from attending this lecture, it is that the importance of feminisms is ever increasing and reclamation of the word is dire. This panel, made up of 5 leading international political scientists along with Australian academics and researchers, sought to discuss the state of contemporary feminism. With focus on; How far women have come in terms of political leadership and shaping the public policy agenda? Do men and women do politics differently? Do women have different interests to men and how should these be incorporated into political decision-making? How might contemporary feminism contribute to improving women’s position in politics?

The forum discussed the hopes and responsibilities of a new generation of feminists. Examples were made of Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin of who were criticized for their lack of feminist progression in their political careers. It was important for these characters to emerge as it gave light to feminism and its goal in shaping political agenda. Issues of legitimacy, women’s presence in powerful institutions and symbolically in politics were brought to air as each panel member took turns in staking their claims and history as feminists. Here there was a re-reading of the invisibility of women and the necessity of a new gender discourse that is inclusive and not limited to the academic world. With this new discourse, it was suggested; the ideas of today’s society can be brought into the community.

American panel member Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Professor of American Studies and Government at Cornell University introduced the idea of American Exceptionalism, taking a Materialist Feminist worldview on feminsms battle with capitalism where “the market rules”. Here the problem of the commodification of female sexuality was discussed putting emphasis on ‘supporting a punitive response to violence against women.’ Katzenstein is hopeful stating; “…despite its problems, feminism is active…. there’s real power in feminism in the states.”

In the UK, apparently, signs are very mixed. There is a resurgence featuring a lot of cyber activity suggesting the ‘green shoots’ of feminism. Women’s representation is ‘good’ across the board with UK women ‘feminsing their partners.’ Su Goodwin, senior lecturer in the Faculty of Social Work and Education at the University of Sydney insists that we still have gendered divisions and gender divided workforces. Goodwin explains gendered ordering, where the masculine is valued over the feminine. Goodwin suggests maybe trying to think of the ‘over representation of men instead of the under representation of women.’ She goes on to add that ‘instead of having women in leadership courses we should have men doing mediocrity courses.’ Goodwin also reaffirms the need for institutional change, a point I had previously not considered, but have realised this is where the big changes need to happen. This realization has shifted my own creative and theoretical focus as a feminist.

Rebecca Huntley is an Australian writer and social researcher. Her input was most theoretically progressive. She believes we have made progress and highlights the need to reflect on where we’ve come from and use it as strength for the future. One panel member remembers Helen Reddies ‘I am woman’ because “Her mother would sing it whilst doing the vaccumming.”

She points out unrecognized class separation and an obsession with what women look like. She also points to a need to recognize the gay community and work on changing absurd inequality that exists within its viewing, highlighting the relationship to queer theory and feminism.

Huntley believes we must be fighting at a local level and that ‘not everyone is a feminist now.’ As a spectator I am enlightened and reminded about placing feminism in a political sphere that isn’t just about gender. Huntley argues for progressive behaviours where we reject the media’s definition of feminism. She carefully silences non-believers in the crowd and suggests that you are not labelling yourself by being feminist, but seeing yourself as part of a cultural phenomenon. Here, we question how we might mobilize so institutional figureheads are forced to make changes. The forum was also a great mechanism for realizing the importance of a higher prominence of feminist politics in education. Where feminism is active and accurately taught, not just represented in a misleading, demonizing stereotyped manner, which happened to be my educational experience of the ideology.

Questions of how to empower yourself daily in the absence of autonomy, where we might as a community of feminists, infiltrate all avenues for change. The forum encouraged spectators to think very broadly about what feminism means and how to keep making it work in a conservative repressive era. Combating the masculine backlash to feminism and asking what equality really means?

Panel members insisted that we must continue to ask awkward questions, to speak unspeakable truths and realise, though, it manifests through the responsible individual, problems are systemic. Harnessing the power of words and the continual questioning of an apparent democracy can make obvious that women’s issues are the issues of society as a whole and citizens have a responsibility. In Australia, the claim was made that; women are not recognized as full citizens.

Huntley adds ‘We must laugh at what is ridiculous and not laugh at what is not.’ Feminism has to navigate a way to make people accountable for their actions at the same time as changing the mechanism that is allowing prejudice to continue. Perhaps what becomes clear about the theory of feminisms, through this forum that placed the theory within a larger scale of theories; globalization, industrialization, capitalism etc, is that now, we must claim feminism and all of it’s history, conflicting and all, to reclaim it’s universal objectives of equality and freedom.

Response to Life Experience & Noel Polk (Noni's Post)

I was unable to attend Noel Polk's lecture on "Living Outside of History," but on reading Noni's post (thank you Noni!) I started to consider more of the notions of life experience as it translates to critical theory. As Noni said of Polk's approach to theory, "It was a way of drawing out the very complex issues that arise out of everyday life," and this took me back to a seminar I saw recently from screenwriter, producer and executive producer Andrew Knight at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. Although this was more of an industry practice seminar rather than an intended theoretical approach to practice, it has resonated in a very interesting way with the Noel Polk to show life experience through history and narrative in a kind of dialogue with one another.

Knight's career has spanned over the past 30+ years and in this lecture, he spoke of his craft and approach to practice as it pertains to the dynamics of the Australian context and the industry that this context nurtures. Just as Polk explored social identity, Knight too highlighted social factors and issues of identity as narrative material in telling Australian stories. With this in mind, life experience has always been Knight's approach to writing and rationalism has driven his approach to creativity. This was quite clearly evident in the way that he conducted himself throughout his speaking, as it is the everyday that inspires and has the ability to entrance. "As a writer, you need to remain close with people, your community...remain with the world outside your head." It's about finding characters in real life that can translate to flesh on the page. These notions of rational and realist derivations have spurred Knight's creative practice, and successfully so. In the context of the Australian industry, however, he noted a sense of pandering to America for validation.

As he commented, Australia spends a great deal of time and money trying to "justify itself in its film culture," but the biggest problem for us is embracing the fact that we are not America. Our stories, histories, identities, myths, crises and triumphs are ours, and by tailoring them to America in an attempt to justify ourselves, our culture/s is devalued. We're dragging ourselves into American formulas unnecessarily without considering the value of success in our own backyard. Where is the sense of pride for Australia? Throughout his seminar, this connection to Australia and passion for art in our country was clearly evident and certainly infectious.
His perspective also sat on the side of art rather than commerce, and as such, one Bec Haly may have a retort...

With his craft and approaches at core, Knight's seminar tapped into very personal aspects of his industry practice and allowed insight into how the sense of self plays into any practice. One of his closing comments was, "The only way you can justify life is through your culture," and again, a contextualisation of practice as it sits in the Australian industry was broached and has profoundly in my own practice since.

From both Polk and Knight it can be said that life experience plays past and present, and by living those experiences we may then step outside of them to observe greater engagement in theoretical and practical pursuit.