sfmelrose.org.uk Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the sfmelrose.org.uk

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host sfmelrose.org.uk. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is Webfusion Internet Solutions .

the related websites

secouncils.gov.uk asmdc.org oxfordprintmakers.co.uk nikonsmallworld.com cloudworks.ac.uk mermaidcoveonline.com bloomberg.com containercity.com 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache/2.4.33 (Unix) containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

skip to content professor s f melrose m ès l, dip d'ea (universite de paris iii) doctorat (sorbonne nlle) e-mail: [email protected] menu introduction publications work in print papers on line about introduction these pages take as their starting premise my observation – as writer – that while relatively little has been published in the first years of the 21stc that deals explicitly with questions of disciplinary mastery and expertise in performance-making, it is also the case that practitioners in the performing arts are registering in significant numbers for higher degrees in music, dance, theatre and performing arts, in universities across the country. this situation seemed to me as educator, early in the 21stc, to have a degree of urgency to it. at that time, many of us had begun to speak and write in the university, at least, about ‘practice’, and ‘practitioners’, as though a shift in focus and in terminology might allow us to use older knowledge-models to engage with the rapidly changing situation in parts of the university. in these pages i raise a number of questions, and identify a number of issues that circulate around the notion of ‘practice’, which in the present context i want to qualify as expert. the qualifier itself seems, in certain parts of the university, at least, to be contentious – although enquiry tends to reveal that what is contentious here is historically specific, perhaps discipline (or anti-discipline) specific (by which i mean that it more readily holds in certain areas of performance-making than in many others); and it is (knowledge-)politically determined. on these bases, perhaps my heading here should read the ‘knowledge-politics of expert practices in performance-making’ – or would this make my writing a hostage to fortune, to the extent that it comes from a professional writer-educator, and not an ‘expert practitioner in performance-making’? perhaps, instead, these pages and the different undertakings they record should be headed ‘the (written) confessions of an uneasy expert spectator’ . confessions of an uneasy expert spectator 1. in 2003, i organised a symposium focused, apparently provocatively, on virtuosity and performance mastery. the symposium was better attended by colleagues/students from dance and music, than from theatre – although the incomparable richard gough contributed a keynote address, recorded in these pages. we sought to raise a number of questions and approach a number of issues relating to what i termed ‘expert/creative meta-practice’ and its relationships with academic writing. i was proposing that we look at ‘disciplinary mastery’ and performance expertise (and excellence), asking firstly why these sorts of terms tend to have been erased from published academic discourses, in certain parts, at least, of the university; secondly, whether research, pursued with due regard to quality (as that is established and recognised in the university), might be carried out through expert practices (also recognised outside the university) – and how one might go about and record that sort of enquiry; third, in what terms expert practice and disciplinary mastery, and their ‘outcomes’, might be both ‘measured’, and argued for, in those academic contexts within which this sort of case might well need to be made. lurking within or around such questions were others relating specifically to judgement: i was concerned, in part, at that time, under the heading of ‘equivalence’, with the criteria applied to the assessment of traditional phd research, and with a certain reticence, in established research offices, when it came to articulating the precise bases on which judgements of value as to the quality of research were traditionally made. i argued at the time that the quest for equivalence, between the evaluative models applied to traditionally-published research, and those that might be applied to expert performance-making practices as research, was hampered, to the extent that many of us examining traditional phds might well seem to start from unacknowledged expert intuitions as to quality, which we proceed, thereafter, to rationalise. key questions posed at the symposium were as follows: what is the knowledge-political status of disciplinary mastery in the university? how do we distinguish, in research-worthy terms , between “creative”, “professional” and “research imperatives” in performing arts practice? what should be the relationship, in the higher degree context, between disciplinary mastery and the production of writing in the “critical-analytical” tradition? how should we approach the relationship between composition for performance, performance mastery and performance viewed as “interpretation”? do we need to be able to write differently when a major focus of research is creative practice? embedded in these questions, i later observed, was my own crisis of representation: what does my use of ‘we’, three times above, represent? what might my own engagement be, as expert writer/educator, when it has increasingly seemed to me, over the past decade, that one of the problems confronting expert arts practitioners who have entered the research contexts of the university, lies in the demonstrable fact that many highly skilled writers, in that same university, use models of knowledge, ways of seeing, doing and knowing, along with approaches to the performance product , that are specific to the positions and activities, in the (performance) event, of ‘expert spectating’? if this is indeed the case (and i have called performance studies taught in the university a ‘closet spectator studies’ that misrecognises itself as such), then one question that follows is this: to what extent can these knowledge modes and practices be usefully borrowed, by expert performance-makers? to what extent can models of intelligibility and models of interpretation that are specific to spectating, be used to represent expert making processes? 2. other writers have pointed out that expert performance-makers, at certain times, equally adopt the positions of spectating, while making new work. my point, however, is that their spectating is different, both in time, and in its objectives: it is one element in a mode of performance-productivity. when the expert maker spectates, she tends to do so with performance production in mind, with the imperatives vital to performance-making in mind, and these are implicated in the actions that follow. this is a creative, inventive intervention, at a particular stage in the making, and these particulars colour the viewing. i am calling this spectating a “theoretical practice”, for reasons i return to below. not only, then, is their positionality significantly different, in discipline-specific terms,but so too are these times of engagement with performance: the times of making new work are almost never available to spectating in the performance event – although some of us encourage performance studies students to mis-take performance effects (spectator-experienced), for performance-making causes (necessarily spectator-imagined). 3. in 2002, in the context of a goat island summer school, and with difference in mind, i posed related questions: please adjust your set what might be the implications, for the ways some of us proceed to think arts practices, of the premise that established ways of knowing condemn us to inadequate ideas ? what might be the implications, for those of us involved in or with art-making practices in one or another arts-marketplace, of the premise that inadequate ideas, produced and reproduced in the university, condemn practitioners to participate in the reproduction of inadequate ways of knowing? one example of the “set” to which my title refers, is provided by the apparently irresistible, even commonsensical reproduction of the couplet “theory and practice”; another linked and equally commonsensical set is brought by his old friend “mind and body”. the “deleuzian challeng

URL analysis for sfmelrose.org.uk

https://www.sfmelrose.org.uk/printed-publications/
https://www.sfmelrose.org.uk/home/publications/
https://www.sfmelrose.org.uk/papers-on-line/
https://www.sfmelrose.org.uk/#content
https://www.sfmelrose.org.uk/home/about/
johnrobinson.org.uk
tandf.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain name:
sfmelrose.org.uk

Registrant:
John Robinson

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
Victoria Road
Deal
Kent
CT14 7BA
United Kingdom

Data validation:
Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 21-Apr-2015

Registrar:
123-Reg Limited t/a 123-reg [Tag = 123-REG]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 16-Jul-2007
Expiry date: 16-Jul-2019
Last updated: 03-Jun-2016

Registration status:
Registered until expiry date.

Name servers:
ns.123-reg.co.uk 212.67.202.2
ns2.123-reg.co.uk 62.138.132.21

WHOIS lookup made at 15:51:22 03-Nov-2017

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2017.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REFERRER http://www.nominet.org.uk

  REGISTRAR Nominet UK

SERVERS

  SERVER uk.whois-servers.net

  ARGS sfmelrose.org.uk

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

OWNER

  ORGANIZATION John Robinson

TYPE
UK Individual

ADDRESS
Victoria Road
Deal
Kent
CT14 7BA
United Kingdom
Data validation:
Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 21-Apr-2015

DOMAIN

  SPONSOR 123-Reg Limited t/a 123-reg [Tag = 123-REG]

  CREATED 2007-07-16

  CHANGED 2016-06-03

STATUS
Registered until expiry date.

NSERVER

  NS.123-REG.CO.UK 212.67.202.2

  NS2.123-REG.CO.UK 62.138.132.21

  NAME sfmelrose.org.uk

DISCLAIMER
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:
Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2017.
You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .