David Smith	MaMMID
Research Project	Darren Stevens
Tuesday 20^th May 2003

Why is art research viewed in terms of theory and not practice?

Abstract

The case for this paper was initiated through a short period of investigative study into the nature of Practice Based Research (PBR) at PhD Doctoral level in fine art and the more prevalent traditional research area of science.

Developing from the initial study of PBR, questions arose centring on the necessity of art research, from a general position of informal subjective intuitive practice research (the typical artist) into formal objective rational part practice/textural research, in view to it’s move towards the empirical position of science.

To postulate further, is art to become science?

The research project developed through the joint approach of literature review and artist/researcher self reflexive understanding to the point at which the researcher is at a level of understanding and in agreement to the current debate for formal research within Fine Art.

Summary of the main points

The initial position of the researcher, as a practicing artist, is that of artistic practice being a composition of the informal, the subjective and the practical approach to problem solving. The research thus undertaken has moved the researcher towards a new position more akin to that of the professional researcher, in that study for a PhD in Fine Art must incorporate general elements of research from a professional perspective. For example the formality in methods, objectifying the subjective and a joint procedure of textural and practical content acting as one in view to publishing of results to the wider community.

Following this transition, the main points that the research focused on were the composition of ‘Text’ for research project publication, the transference of knowledge from artist to viewer, and the legitimation process between art and academic institutions.

From these three main areas of interest, it will be seen that the original concept of art incorporating scientific research qualities is incorrect and that contextualisation is the basis of research in the Fine Arts.

Critical literature review

Up to date literature in this area is only available through recently published books, conference papers and accountable web sites. The reason for the contemporary aspect to literature is due to the changing qualities of PBR in Fine Art, in this regard the agreed ground level of what constitutes research in the arts is still a debateable area, which through discourse and time will lead to an institutionalised standard[1] and an acceptance of the relevancy of formal research procedures in Fine Art.

In view to the contemporary nature of this subject, the relevancy to the material acquired was found to be of a high regard, and so has lead to a research project developing alongside a contemporary debate.

Summary of your hypotheses

In order to achieve a resolution to the question posited above, it is necessary for the question to be subdivided in to specific areas of relevancy to an artistic approach. Hence the following hypotheses:

- MA and PhD Fine art contextually differ for reasons of formal research methodologies incorporated.

- In order for subjective research to constitute a body of knowledge it has to be contextualised within its field.

- Fine Art is adopting areas of scientific research in order to legitimate itself among academic institutes and to continue the standard of a PhD research level.

Research methods and their reasons

There were two methods incorporated in to the study, that of literature and current debate paper review as well as a self reflexive researcher/artist method.

Literature and conference paper do provide a means to obtain up to date discussion on the area but the self reflexive method of research, in this case the researcher being an artist, allows for a first hand self referential account on practical and theoretical ideologies and how they fit in with the current debate. In this sense, it is not purely written text that is consulted, but a first hand account that helps to inform the researcher.

Hence the researcher is now part of the research in itself and is unable to take a clear objective position within the debate.

Summary of the findings

The research project primarily produced three results in view to the subjectivity of Fine Art and it’s legitimation. These results are better understood as defined subjects in themselves as opposed to simple answers.

In view to the use of text within a research outcome coupled with a practical result, the project found that both text and image constituted a body of ‘Text’ and that neither is seen as the primary project results but each as an intrinsic part of contextualising the other.

Following on from the use of text and imagery, the basis for this in PhD Fine Art can be seen to be surrounding the means by which meaning is transferred between artist to ‘Text’ to spectator and therefore the requirement to bring greater clarity to the extension of the artist subjectivity. In this sense the transference of consciousness is the second and following result of the project.

The last outcome of the project is that of legitimation of the Fine Art or arts PhD. Legitimation of art courses and there qualifying standards are set within the institutions of art themselves, hence art legitimates itself. PhD’s in the arts are now set within a new standard, though still under debate, joint between the academies and the art institutes, in this sense text and visual imagery can either be seen as contextualisation or joint assessments, text for the academy and practice for the art institutes, or as an extension of the commonality of PhD’s across all institutions.

Discussion of the findings

To provide a clear system of comparison between the differing approaches to research, it was necessary first to provide the study with definitions of the following terms :

- Artistic practice
A practical approach to subjective, conscious and unconscious problem solving.

- Practice Based Research
Practical and theoretical approach to subjective conscious problem solving.
Practical being physical experimental research.
A visual accompaniment to the text
This type of research posits the greater understanding of the subjective.

- Scientific – Empirical - Research
Practical empirical research following strict adherence to transparent accessible repeatable results. This style of research is objective and rational.
Knowledge by experience (a posteriori).

- What is a definition of practice?
Methods of attaining a result through practical and theoretical development.

Definitions for the above allow for the understanding of context in which the researcher is posited.

Text

It is important not to consider the textural element in a PBR theses to be the theoretical translation or explanation of the visual practice element. The textural element should be considered jointly with the visual practice for together they constitute a body of knowledge or a media of transference of meaning/consciousness. In this regard, both are a joint form or style of media, one part imagery one part textural that both seek to transfer a clearer more refined level of understanding, or transference of consciousness, from the artist/researcher through the ‘Text’ to the spectator in order to remove any confusion through differentiation of meaning.

So in this sense the purpose of the joint approach of textural and imagery is in the refinement of clarity towards transference of consciousness. They are a method of communication, neither being of greater significance then the other, they both constitute a body of ‘Text’.

Art should never be thought of as purely image or object of visualisation but should also take into account the medium of written text. For the art object at an end is a means for which context and meaning can be transferred or communicated from artist to spectator through no matter which form it may take.

In this sense if text and image can better inform the user what the artist is attempting to communicate in it’s most clarified aspect, then text and image is a justifiable option in order to remove the confusion of non exact communication.

The textural element content should not act as purely a supporting document in view to the visual element but of a joint equal value. The textural element should be viewed in terms of contextualising the artist/researcher and henceforth at best an attempt to ground their research.

Transference

Can art be made truly accessible? To extend this further, can consciousness be made truly accessible?

The use of media in any form (media in this sense includes sight, sound, touch, taste and smell) for communication is a form of transference of consciousness, but the absolute exactitude of any communication, including what an artist wishes to convey and hence the spectator understands, is a problematic area. Media can not and will not allow for an absolute exactitude in view to transference of meaning to be accomplished, for media is understood at an individual conscious and subconscious level. Therefore exact (singular) communication is an impossibility in terms of person to person through signifier to signified. In this regard the use of text and imagery is an attempt to better convey the sharing of a mental state, that of the artist to the spectator.

Art can have a greater level of accessibility through the use of the two forms of media, but it is at best only an attempt, for true singular communication is an impossibility for media and language are understood at an individual level. At this point it is not the singular meaning that the artist wishes to communicate but the context in which the artist posits themselves. Context in this sense sets the level from which the incommunicable can be better understood while at the same time allows for a grounding[2] of the artists intentions.

In view to the impossibility of communication, PhD’s in Fine Art run contrary to their equivalent in empirical sciences that seeks to achieve the accessibility, repeatability and transferability in research results. Fine art and hence the transition of the subjective to the objective can never be truly accessible, transparent or repeatable, for methods of communication at present do not allow for singular meanings or the true transference of conscious to be achieved.

Legitimation

It is perhaps better to view the joint supervision of PhD’s more for the creation and continuance of pre-defined standards to allow for commonality[3] set down over the centuries, than as a means by which academia can assess Fine Art through text. But this can be argued for in terms of academia’s understanding of the arts may not be as in depth visually as the art institutes themselves.

The creation of commonality in the PhD does now create the problem of legitimation whereas in the past (and through lesser qualifications today - MA) art was legitimated through the art institutes, PhD art is now legitimated under the joint supervision of the art institutes and the academia’s which have differing expectations[4]. In this sense the boundaries that legitimated art have been broken and new boundaries have to be found again that incorporate art and academia’s joint expectations of Fine Art. These boundaries will be found but only through continual debate and the gradual academic institutionalising of art.

Conclusion

In regard to the above hypotheses, it can now be seen that through the reduction of the legitimating boundaries of the art institutes the PhD’s in Fine Art are now set under a new system of legitimation. Hence moving the qualifying standards of art from the purely visual to that of contextualising, its peer community grounding and clarity of transference. So in this sense MA and PhD in Fine Art do differ for reasons of formal research methodologies incorporated.

It is wrong to state that Fine Art is now incorporating aspects of scientific empirical enquiry in order to legitimate itself. For it is not the qualities of empirical analysis in themselves that are incorporated but the 3 qualifying standards of PhD being accessibility, repeatability and transferability.

In concluding this research study, the three issues highlighted all point towards a greater awareness of context grounding of the artist/researcher, in view to text, transference of consciousness and of legitimation. In this sense it is hoped that through the transference of the context surrounding the imagery, a better more clearly understanding will be portrayed and received by the viewer. An so hence, it is the not the artwork or the text that is the key issue here, but the transference of clarity both in the artists conception and the viewers perception.

The text and the imagery are not the final product, but from which basis they originate.