Beizam Triple Hammerhead Shark: Animatronic technology and cross-cultural collaboration in the Torres Strait

Research into Beizam Triple Hammerhead Shark: Animatronic technology and cross-cultural collaboration in the Torres Strait, was to further establish and test institutional recognition of cross-collaborative inspired Indigenous/non-Indigenous art within the emergence of a multimillion-dollar Torres Strait Islander arts industry. The success of mainland Aboriginal artists paved the way for Torres Strait Islanders to develop their own contemporary art movement, largely responsible for the cultural revival in which Indigenous communities now participate. Amid this revival, there is limited information on non-Indigenous involvement among these artists and works. The research presented in this thesis expands this area of knowledge. The main premise of my argument questions institutional and Indigenous arts industry downplaying of cross-cultural collaborative engagement among the Torres Strait Islander contemporary art movement. This is supported by demonstrating a history of cross-cultural engagement within the constructs of contemporary art making and cultural practice predating Western influence. I demonstrate how my work with Dr Ken Thaiday Snr (Thaiday) serves to promote cross-cultural engagement and in line with Sasha Grishin’s article on the Defying Empire: 3rd National Indigenous Art Triennial[1], poses questions to curatorial and art market agendas that segregate Indigenous art from the broader context of contemporary Australian non-Indigenous art. One of the arguments I have had with the two earlier shows and continue to have with the present one is with the concept of race-based segregation as the underlying basis for an art exhibition. Is indigenous art in Australia still in need of affirmative action and a sheltered environment for it to grow and survive?[2] The thesis questions curatorial and art market agendas that have misinterpreted our cross-cultural collaborations, segregating them from the broader context of contemporary Australian art through the dismissal of my involvement in the works. An investigation of technology inspired artistic collaborations between Thaiday and myself over the research period of five years is used as a platform to raise questions on the peripheral complications of my non-Indigenous participation in the co-creation of works connected to Torres Strait Islander culture. Our artistic collaborations merge animatronic technologies and automated production systems that integrate with Thaiday’s material culture. Thaiday and I have developed an artistic engagement combining our art practices to produce hybrid, performative works of contemporary art. The aesthetic is a combination of both our styles of work. Thaiday provides the historical context, uniquely styled cultural content and the framework for the collaborative concept to build from based on his past dance machines and centuries of material culture. I provide a connection to a digital realm, introducing technology and the format of a new contemporary aesthetic borne from automated processes and references to my art practice. The newly formed work is digitised bringing the collaborations to life, the works are jointly enhanced by our shared knowledge of the marine environment. The research and collaborative works draw from long-lasting traditions, of collaborative engagement with outsiders including and incorporating new ideas and technologies into the fabric of their own traditional practice and cultural development. A brief historical account of this contemporary art movement and key artists creates the context for three major works undertaken by Thaiday and myself that were shown in prominent exhibitions locally and internationally. The final collaborative work, Beizam Triple Hammerhead Shark 2016 produced for the 20th Biennale of Sydney, forms the major work for the research. This research documents and discusses, the production and reaction, to publically displayed co-created works between Thaiday and me, focusing on perception and understanding of our Indigenous/non-Indigenous artistic collaborative engagement. The thesis advocates a platform that allows our collaborative works to continue contributing towards the promotion of Indigenous cultures, Australian contemporary arts and sharing of cultural ideas and knowledge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. [1] Grishin, Sasha. (June 7, 2017). Defying Empire: 3rd National Indigenous Art Triennial. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/defying-empire-3rd-national-Indigenous-art-triennial-20170606-gwlkgb.html [2] Grishin, Sasha. (June 7, 2017). Defying Empire: 3rd National Indigenous Art Triennial. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/defying-empire-3rd-national-Indigenous-art-triennial-20170606-gwlkgb.htm

Change That Abides: A Retrospective Look at Five Community and Family Stengthening Projects and Their Enduring Results

Examines the interactions among funders, grantees, and community groups, and outlines the results of three different types of foundation grants for projects in Savannah, Little Rock, Dayton, Alameda County, and Boston. Includes recommendations

Complexity and creative capacity : reformulating the problem of knowledge transfer in environmental management

The Ningaloo Reef is Australia’s largest fringing coral reef and an iconic tourist destination; however tourism development in Ningaloo has been ad hoc and the area is challenged by human pressure on numerous fronts. In response to these challenges a number of research agencies brought together a range of scientists to study the effects of human interaction on the reef. Moving from research to practice has been understood to depend on the adaptive capacity of the institutions responsible for governing human activities, in this case in the Ningaloo area. Knowledge transfer describes the suite of strategies used to try to bridge the gap between research and management. Knowledge transfer efforts, however, seldom have the desired impact of seeing research applied to decision-making. The ubiquity of knowledge transfer difficulties across disciplines suggests a common root to the problem, based in our shared cultural assumptions. This study pairs a multidisciplinary theoretical investigation with action research to shed light on why knowledge transfer efforts so often fall short in terms of seeing research applied to practice. Recent environmental management perspectives on knowledge transfer illustrate the shift towards stakeholder participation as a means of improving knowledge transfer success. As such, the action research study involved the researcher embedding herself in the Ningaloo community for 18 months, adopting the role of a knowledge broker and engaging and collaborating with modelling researchers and local stakeholders on knowledge transfer efforts. However, despite intensive stakeholder engagement, evaluation interviews at the end of the process indicated that although the knowledge transfer process had the effect of catalysing relationships between stakeholder groups in the region, and between regional stakeholders and scientists, it appeared to have relatively little effect on the representational knowledge of local stakeholders or the actual application of research in practice. This led to the question of whether knowledge transfer is itself is part of the research uptake problem, as per the principles of problem formulation, which specify that resolving seemingly intractable problems requires examining the assumptions that underpin our thinking about the problem situation. On this basis, the theoretical component of this study explored the Newtonian assumptions that inform our understanding of knowledge transfer. An alternative complexity-based ontology is proposed, unifying the metaphysics of materialism and idealism, based on a synthesis of process philosophy, mathematical logic, quantum theory, general systems theory and the complexity sciences. The phenomena of cognition, learning, knowledge and organising are compared in relation to how they’ve been understood within the Newtonian paradigm, and how they are now being explained from the perspective of a complexity-based paradigm. By reframing the action research results from a complexity perspective, the Ningaloo knowledge transfer process does not constitute a failure in terms of enhancing the capacity of the Ningaloo system to make more sustainable decisions. Rather, the increased connectivity between stakeholder groups and scientists can be viewed as more importantly enhancing the creative capacity of Ningaloo’s governance system. It is posited that the research uptake problem should be reformulated from the basis of complexity paradigm, and the notions of knowledge transfer and adaptive capacity reconceptualised accordingly. Instead of devising rational objective arguments for someone else to improve the ‘adaptive capacity’ of human systems, scientists should focus instead on improving their own creative capacity in their local interactions