Scoring - Revision history

Juju: /* scoring */

2022-04-18T14:28:25Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 18 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==scoring==		==scoring==

	<span class="author">Lilia Mestre - a.pass</span>		<span class="author">Lilia Mestre – a.pass</span>

	<div class="no-indent">In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.</div>		<div class="no-indent">In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.</div>

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-12T09:06:32Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 12 April 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<span class="author">Lilia Mestre - a.pass</span>		<span class="author">Lilia Mestre - a.pass</span>

	In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.		<div class="no-indent">In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.</div>

	Our score practice consists of weekly encounters with a group of <mark class="c5">artistic researchers</mark>. It frames the time and space for task-oriented encounters on a regular basis, as a form of conversation and exchange. These meetings are based on a Q-and-A structure that entails <mark class="c6">material practices</mark> and the formulation of questions.		Our score practice consists of weekly encounters with a group of <mark class="c5">artistic researchers</mark>. It frames the time and space for task-oriented encounters on a regular basis, as a form of conversation and exchange. These meetings are based on a Q-and-A structure that entails <mark class="c6">material practices</mark> and the formulation of questions.

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-10T14:59:57Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 10 April 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<span class="author">Lilia Mestre - a.pass</span>		<span class="author">Lilia Mestre - a.pass</span>

	~~<div class="no-indent">~~In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.~~</div>~~		In the context of a.pass, I have developed an approach to using scores as a pedagogical tool, titled Scorescapes, following the institutional desire for instigating co-learning through making and <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>.

	Our score practice consists of weekly encounters with a group of <mark class="c5">artistic researchers</mark>. It frames the time and space for task-oriented encounters on a regular basis, as a form of conversation and exchange. These meetings are based on a Q-and-A structure that entails <mark class="c6">material practices</mark> and the formulation of questions.		Our score practice consists of weekly encounters with a group of <mark class="c5">artistic researchers</mark>. It frames the time and space for task-oriented encounters on a regular basis, as a form of conversation and exchange. These meetings are based on a Q-and-A structure that entails <mark class="c6">material practices</mark> and the formulation of questions.

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T17:59:35Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 7 April 2022
Line 29:		Line 29:

	What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>		What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>
	<div class="~~tighter1~~"> The venture of this kind of proposition is to support articulation of artistic practices as fundamentally relational, embedded and potentially critical to forms of governance (because it is itself of form of governance that makes participants aware of the arbitrary character of rules). The subjectivities that become manifest in the ''scoring'' practice can be seen as organisms who gain sustainability and stability through their interplay and gradually improving cohabitation. Score, in this way, becomes a constructed framework through which an ecology of practices (Isabelle Stengers) is manifested, each of them revealing their support structure and proliferating within the alliances, conflicts, and proximities they evoke.</div>		<div class="tighter2"> The venture of this kind of proposition is to support articulation of artistic practices as fundamentally relational, embedded and potentially critical to forms of governance (because it is itself of form of governance that makes participants aware of the arbitrary character of rules). The subjectivities that become manifest in the ''scoring'' practice can be seen as organisms who gain sustainability and stability through their interplay and gradually improving cohabitation. Score, in this way, becomes a constructed framework through which an ecology of practices (Isabelle Stengers) is manifested, each of them revealing their support structure and proliferating within the alliances, conflicts, and proximities they evoke.</div>

	These encounters propose a form of sociability, by their regular character over a period of time, but most of all by virtue of the subjectivities that emerge out of them. The type of engagement at stake is one that I can name as friendship (see <mark class="c2">artificial friendship</mark>): curiosity, presence, offering of time, attention, staying with, consideration, but also dissensus, opposition <br>		These encounters propose a form of sociability, by their regular character over a period of time, but most of all by virtue of the subjectivities that emerge out of them. The type of engagement at stake is one that I can name as friendship (see <mark class="c2">artificial friendship</mark>): curiosity, presence, offering of time, attention, staying with, consideration, but also dissensus, opposition <br>

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T17:57:33Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 7 April 2022
Line 29:		Line 29:

	What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>		What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>
	The venture of this kind of proposition is to support articulation of artistic practices as fundamentally relational, embedded and potentially critical to forms of governance (because it is itself of form of governance that makes participants aware of the arbitrary character of rules). The subjectivities that become manifest in the ''scoring'' practice can be seen as organisms who gain sustainability and stability through their interplay and gradually improving cohabitation. Score, in this way, becomes a constructed framework through which an ecology of practices (Isabelle Stengers) is manifested, each of them revealing their support structure and proliferating within the alliances, conflicts, and proximities they evoke.		<div class="tighter1"> The venture of this kind of proposition is to support articulation of artistic practices as fundamentally relational, embedded and potentially critical to forms of governance (because it is itself of form of governance that makes participants aware of the arbitrary character of rules). The subjectivities that become manifest in the ''scoring'' practice can be seen as organisms who gain sustainability and stability through their interplay and gradually improving cohabitation. Score, in this way, becomes a constructed framework through which an ecology of practices (Isabelle Stengers) is manifested, each of them revealing their support structure and proliferating within the alliances, conflicts, and proximities they evoke.</div>

	These encounters propose a form of sociability, by their regular character over a period of time, but most of all by virtue of the subjectivities that emerge out of them. The type of engagement at stake is one that I can name as friendship (see <mark class="c2">artificial friendship</mark>): curiosity, presence, offering of time, attention, staying with, consideration, but also dissensus, opposition <br>		These encounters propose a form of sociability, by their regular character over a period of time, but most of all by virtue of the subjectivities that emerge out of them. The type of engagement at stake is one that I can name as friendship (see <mark class="c2">artificial friendship</mark>): curiosity, presence, offering of time, attention, staying with, consideration, but also dissensus, opposition <br>

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T17:52:24Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 7 April 2022
Line 24:		Line 24:


	<div class="no-indent">		<div class="no-indent">Because it is a formalist tool, the score works as a perverse partner that regulates mutual relations and modes of presence through chance procedures, enabling connections that otherwise would maybe not be experienced. It is useful to think of the score as a self-regulating infrastructure operating through people’s practices and contents. This practice asks for attendance in a state of shared alertness for the individual and collective assemblages, entanglements and situatednesses that the research practices of the participants propose. The paradox between the formal precision of the score and the unpredictability of the materials that are produced, allows for the experience of aesthetic and ethical readings that reconsider <br>and reposition oneself as part of world(s).</div>
	Because it is a formalist tool, the score works as a perverse partner that regulates mutual relations and modes of presence through chance procedures, enabling connections that otherwise would maybe not be experienced. It is useful to think of the score as a self-regulating infrastructure operating through people’s practices and contents. This practice asks for attendance in a state of shared alertness for the individual and collective assemblages, entanglements and situatednesses that the research practices of the participants propose. The paradox between the formal precision of the score and the unpredictability of the materials that are produced, allows for the experience of aesthetic and ethical readings that reconsider <br>
	and reposition oneself as part of world(s).</div>

	In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c6">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.		In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c6">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T17:49:56Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 7 April 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The score can be seen as a generative infrastructure that invites to participate as fellow researchers in each other’s practice. It is a form of engaged spectatorship based on responsiveness and response-ability (K. Barad) which allows to think through the relations and attachments suggested in each participant’s proposal.		The score can be seen as a generative infrastructure that invites to participate as fellow researchers in each other’s practice. It is a form of engaged spectatorship based on responsiveness and response-ability (K. Barad) which allows to think through the relations and attachments suggested in each participant’s proposal.


	<div class="no-indent">		<div class="no-indent">

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T13:04:47Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 7 April 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	The score can be seen as a generative infrastructure that invites to participate as fellow researchers in each other’s practice. It is a form of engaged spectatorship based on responsiveness and response-ability (K. Barad) which allows to think through the relations and attachments suggested in each participant’s proposal.		The score can be seen as a generative infrastructure that invites to participate as fellow researchers in each other’s practice. It is a form of engaged spectatorship based on responsiveness and response-ability (K. Barad) which allows to think through the relations and attachments suggested in each participant’s proposal.

			<div class="no-indent">
	Because it is a formalist tool, the score works as a perverse partner that regulates mutual relations and modes of presence through chance procedures, enabling connections that otherwise would maybe not be experienced. It is useful to think of the score as a self-regulating infrastructure operating through people’s practices and contents. This practice asks for attendance in a state of shared alertness for the individual and collective assemblages, entanglements and situatednesses that the research practices of the participants propose. The paradox between the formal precision of the score and the unpredictability of the materials that are produced, allows for the experience of aesthetic and ethical readings that reconsider <br>		Because it is a formalist tool, the score works as a perverse partner that regulates mutual relations and modes of presence through chance procedures, enabling connections that otherwise would maybe not be experienced. It is useful to think of the score as a self-regulating infrastructure operating through people’s practices and contents. This practice asks for attendance in a state of shared alertness for the individual and collective assemblages, entanglements and situatednesses that the research practices of the participants propose. The paradox between the formal precision of the score and the unpredictability of the materials that are produced, allows for the experience of aesthetic and ethical readings that reconsider <br>
	and reposition oneself as part of world(s).		and reposition oneself as part of world(s).</div>

	In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c6">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.		In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c6">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T13:00:34Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 7 April 2022
Line 26:		Line 26:
	and reposition oneself as part of world(s).		and reposition oneself as part of world(s).

	In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c5">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.		In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c6">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.

	What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>		What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>

Hd-onions: /* scoring */

2022-04-07T12:59:33Z

scoring

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 7 April 2022
Line 26:		Line 26:
	and reposition oneself as part of world(s).		and reposition oneself as part of world(s).

	In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and material practice (a lot!), the scores can enable a platform for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.		In trying to deal with questions related to co-learning that aim to encompass dissensus, not knowing, methodological understanding, authorship, politics, backgrounds, histories, <mark class="c3">criticality</mark>, sociability, institutional framework, philosophy, ecologies, and <mark class="c5">material practice</mark> (a lot!), the scores can enable a <mark class="c2">platform</mark> for exchange through <mark class="c5">critical making</mark>.

	What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>		What we can learn from engaging with each other in such a way, is that form and content are always already symptomatic of a set of relations, and that these sets of relations propose degrees of inclusiveness, contradictions, and resistance. <br>