Advertisement

The Naïve Researcher Resisting Methodology: A Ph.D. Experience

  • Smiljana GlisovicEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter proposes a methodology for moving-image creative practice research which centres on qualities and practices of attention. This is about attending to the formal properties of the medium in the moment of ‘making’ whilst taking into the field of attention all of the other complex processes involved in moving-image production. The chapter reflects on how these materialities interrelate and give rise to the practitioner’s research ‘acts’. In this way, methodology is found in every instance as a unique set of processes, where the entanglement of the theoretical terrains, the materiality of the medium, and the researcher’s own experience of making come to bear on the work we call the research artefact. Here, the question of methodology remains flexible, malleable, and transformable.

References

  1. Adorno, T. W. (1984). The Essay as Form. New German Critique, 32, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, N. M. (2007). Translating the Essay into Film and Installation. Journal of Visual Culture, 6, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, J. M. (2009). The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, W. (2009). The Origin of German Tragic Drama. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Bensmaia, R. (1987). The Barthes Effect: The Essay as Reflective Text. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  6. Bruzzi, S. (2000). New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, A. (1999). Economy of the Unlost. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cataldi, S. L. (1993). Emotion, Depth, and Flesh. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chamarette, J. (2012). Phenomenology and the Future of Film. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corrigan, T. (2011). The Essay Film: From Montaigne, After Marker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  12. Deren, M. (2007). Film in Progress: Thematic Statement. In A. Davies & N. Rodriguez (Eds), Reverse Angle Cinema and Anthropology. Madrid: La Casa Encendida.Google Scholar
  13. Di Tella. (2012). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. In Alisa Lebow (Ed.), The Cinema of Me. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2005). The Order of Things. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Gaines, J. M., & Renov, M. (Eds). (1999). Collecting Visible Evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Glisovic, S. (2014). Casting and Straying: Hybrid Approaches to Understanding the Dissolution of the Body into Landscape and Landscape into Body. PhD thesis, RMIT University, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Glück, L. (1994). Proofs and Theories. Monmouth Junction, NJ: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  18. Lebow, A. (Ed.). (2012). The Cinema of Me. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lopate, P. (1992). In Search of the Centaur: The Essay-Film. The Threepenny, 48(winter), 19–22. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4384052. Accessed 28 Oct 2017.
  20. Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural Geography: The Busyness of Being ‘More-Than-Representational’. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lukács, G. (1974). Soul and Form (Trans. Anna Bostock). London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  22. Manning, E. (2015). Against Method. In P. Vannini (Ed.), Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Marks, L. U. (2000). The Skin of the Film. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marks, L. U. (2002). Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. McCormack, D. (2014). Refrains for Moving Bodies: Experience and Experiment in Affective Spaces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nichols, B. (1983). The Voice of Documentary. Film Quarterly, 36(3), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rascaroli, L. (2008). The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions, Textual Commitments. Framework, 49(2), 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Renov, M. (1993). Theorizing Documentary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenberg, T. (2000). The Reservoir Towards a Poetic Model of Research in Design (Working Papers in Art and Design 1).Google Scholar
  30. Rouch, J. (2007). On the Vicissitudes of the Self. In A. Davies & N. Rodriguez (Eds), Reverse Angle, Cinema and Anthropology. Madrid: La Casa Encendida.Google Scholar
  31. Rutherford, A. (2011). What Makes a Film Tick? Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, H., & Dean, R. (Eds). (2009). Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Steiner, G. (1978). On Difficulty. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 36(3), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thrift, N. (2007). Non-Representational Theory Space, Politics, Affect. Hoboken, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  35. Vannini, P. (2015). Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, L. (1993). Mirror Without Memories: Truth, History, and the New Documentary. Film Quarterly, 46(3), 9–21. http://www.jstore.org/stable/1212899.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations