art practice as research

Graeme Sullivan, 2006,  Artefacts as evidence within changing contexts. Working Papers in Art and Design 4. Available online http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol4/gsfull.html
“A central feature of art practice is that it embodies ideas that are given form in the process of making artworks. Irrespective of the informing sources, media preferences, or image-base, the artist exercises individual control over the creation and presentation of artefacts as forms of knowledge. Further, the images and ideas created have the capacity to not only change the artist’s conceptions of reality, but also influence the viewer’s interpretation of artworks. Consequently art practice can be seen as a form of intellectual and imaginative inquiry, and as a place where research can be carried out that is robust enough to yield reliable insights that are well grounded and culturally relevant. This paper argues that artefacts created as a result of visual arts research have the capacity to be interpreted as evidence in a range of robust ways.”
———————————————————————————————

Interesting (almost complete) sections available via google books include Introduction; Very useful: Appendix. Developing and writing creative arts practice research: a guide.

———————————————————————————————

Barbara Bolt, 2006, A Non Standard Deviation: Handlability, Praxical Knowledge and Practice Led Research. In  Speculation and Innovation: applying practice led research in the Creative Industries. Available online http://www.artsresearch.brighton.ac.uk/links/practice-led/Bolt2005.pdf

“Martin Heidegger’s notion of handlability builds on the assumption that our understanding of the world is predicated upon our dealings in the world. According to this perspective, we come to know the world theoretically only after we have come to understand it through handling. Through such dealings, our apprehension is neither merely perceptual nor rational. Rather, such dealings or handling reveals its own kind of tacit knowledge. This
paper investigates the operations of handlability in creative arts research.”

———————————————————————————————

Barbara Bolt, 2006,  Materializing pedagogies. Working Papers in Art and Design vol4. Retrieved November 30, 2008

‘Theorising out of practice, I would argue, involves a very different way of thinking than applying theory to practice. It offers a very specific way of understanding the world, one that is grounded in (to borrow Paul Carter’s term) “material thinking” rather than merely conceptual thinking. Material thinking offers us a way of considering the relations that take place within the very process or tissue of making. In this conception the materials are not just passive objects to be used instrumentally by the artist, but rather the materials and processes of production have their own intelligence that come into play in interaction with the artist’s creative intelligence.”

———————————————————————————————

Estelle Barrett, 2006, Foucault’s What is an Author: Towards a critical discourse of practice as research. Working Papers in Art and Design, 4. Available online: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol4/ebfull.html

“A problem confronting many artistic researchers is related to the need for the artist to write about his or her own work in the research report or exegesis, The outcomes of such research are not easily quantifiable and it can be difficult to articulate objectively, methods processes, and conclusions that emerge from an alternative logic of practice and the intrinsically subjective dimension of artistic production. Moreover, conventional approaches and models of writing about art generally fall within the domain of criticism, a discourse that tends to focus on connoisieurial evaluation of the finished product. How then, might the artist as researcher avoid on one hand, what has been referred to as “auto-connoisseurship”, the undertaking of a thinly veiled labour of valorising what has been achieved in the creative work, or alternatively producing a research report that is mere description (Nelson 2004)?”

———————————————————————————————

Estelle Barrett, What Does it Meme? The Exegesis as Valorisation and Validation of Creative Arts Research. Available online: http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue3/barrett.htm

“In the arts, conventional modes of valorisation such as the gallery system, reviews and criticism focus on the artistic product and hence, lack sustained engagement with the creative processes as models of research. Such engagement is necessary to articulate and validate studio practices as modes of enquiry. A crucial question to initiate this engagement is: ‘What did the studio process reveal that could not have been revealed by any other mode of enquiry?’ Re-versioning of the studio process and its significant moments through the exegesis locates the work within the broader field of practice and theory. It is also part of the replication process that establishes the creative arts as a stable research discipline, able to withstand peer and wider assessment. The exegesis is a primary means of realising creative arts research as ‘meme’.”

———————————————————————————————

Linda Candy 2006 Practice Based Research: A Guide. Sydney: Creativity & Cognition Studios, University of Technology. [available online]

Read:
Differences between the two types practice related research: practice-based and practice-led.
Essential distinction: “If a creative artefact is the basis of the contribution to knowledge, the research is
practice-based. If the research leads primarily to new understandings about practice, it is practice-led.” (p.3)
The role of the artwork/ creative artefact in reporting the research results
” The artefact is not an explanation in itself:  it requires linguistic description that relates the development and nature of the artefact to understandings about creative process; the text describes the innovation embodied in the artefact but cannot be fully understood without reference to and observation of the artefact.” (p.9)
———————————————————————————————

Scrivener, S. (2004) The practical implications of applying a theory of practice based research: a case study. Working Papers in Art and Design 3. Retrieved November 16, 2008

Scrivener, S. (2002) The art object does not embody a form of knowledge. Working Papers in Art and Design vol2. Retrieved November 16, 2008

Pakes, A. (2004) Art as action or art as object? the embodiment of knowledge in practice as research. Working Papers in Art and Design vol3. Retrieved November 26, 2008

Biggs, M.A.R. (2004) Editorial: the role of the artefact in art and design research. Working Papers in Art and Design 3. Retrieved November 16, 2008


———————————————————————————————
Kathrin Busch, 2009, Artistic Research and the Poetics of Knowledge Art&Research vol 2 (2) [available online]

———————————————————————————————

Balkema, A.W. & Slager, H. (2004) Artistic Research. Rodopi.

full chapters available via ingenta (free PDF download)
Methododicy
pp. 12-31(20)
Author: Slager, Henk
———————————————————————————————-

Henk Borgdorff, 2010: Artistic Research as Boundary Work, pages 4-11. In How does Artistic Research Change us? Proceedings of CARPA 1 – 1st Colloquium on Artistic Research in Performing Arts. Theatre Academy, Helsinki November 19.-21., 2009 Performing Arts Research Centre, Theatre Academy 2010. ISBN 978-952-9765-59-1. Previously published in: Corina Caduff, Fiona Siegenthaler and Tan Wälchli (Eds) Art and Artistic Research / Kunst und Künstlerische Forschung Zurich Yearbook of the Arts / Zürcher Jahrbuch der Künste, vol.6, pp. 72-79 Zürcher Hochschule der Künste (ZHdK) and Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess, 2010.

———————————————————————————————-

Michael A R Biggs “Learning from Experience: approaches to the experiential componenet of practice-based research” in: Forskning, Reflektion, Utveckling. Stockholm, Vetenskapsrådet, 2004, 6-21. Online version.

———————————————————————————————-

Corina Caduff, Fiona Siegenthaler, and Tan Wälchli, Eds. (2010)

Art and Artistic Research: Music, Visual Art, Design, Literature, Dance.The University of Chicago Press

———————————————————————————————-

Michael Biggs, Henrik Karlsson, Eds. (2010)

The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. Routledge

———————————————————————————————-

Leavy, P. (2008). Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. Guilford Press.

Download the sample chapter Social Research and the Creative Arts An Introduction from the editors’ site.

Another interesting chapter available via google books include

The Visual Arts

———————————————————————————————-

Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2004). Visualizing research : a guide to the research process in art
and design
.
Aldershot, Hants, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

———————————————————————————————

Miles, M. ( 2005). New Practices, New Pedagogies: A Reader. Routledge.

———————————————————————————————
Macleod, K. & Holdridge, L. (2005) Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research. Routledge
———————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————

Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2008) Handbook of Emergent Methods. Guilford Press

———————————————————————————————

Kester, G.H. 2004) Conversation pieces: community and communication in modern art. University of California Press.

[ chapters available inGoogle Books]

Dialogical Aesthetics

See also:Grant Kester Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially-Engaged Art.

———————————————————————————————-

Journal Studies in Material Thinking

selection of relevant papers:

Miles, A.(2008) Virtual Actual: Hypertext as Material Writing. . Studies in Material Thinking 1 (2). Retrieved November 30, 2008.


Ross, T.(2008) Material Thinking: the aesthetic philosophy of Jacques Rancière and the design art of Andrea Zittel Studies in Material Thinking 1 (2). Retrieved November 30, 2008.
———————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————-
———————————————————————————————-

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=F3uGZeBpnUgC&dq=practice-based+research+art&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

———————————————————————————————

One Response to art practice as research

  1. Pingback: Thinking Practices: University of Westminster | GRAPHIC RESEARCH

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s