Pauline Kleingeld, trans. David L. Colclasure, Yale University Press, Open navigation menu. Close suggestions Search Search. User Settings. Skip carousel. Carousel Previous. Carousel Next. What is Scribd?
Explore Ebooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All Ebooks. Explore Audiobooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All audiobooks. Explore Magazines. Editors' Picks All magazines. Explore Podcasts All podcasts. Difficulty Beginner Intermediate Advanced. Explore Documents. Document Information click to expand document information Original Title A. Did you find this document useful? Is this content inappropriate? Report this Document. Flag for inappropriate content. Download now.
Save Save A. For Later. Original Title: A. Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next. Verbal and Numerical REasoning hints, priorities, methodology. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy J. Jump to Page. Search inside document. Documents Similar To A. Anthony Fejfar. Rachel Anne Barlao. Justin Horky. Oarga Catalin-Petru. Camilo Be. Myzel Cornelio. Rhea Loida Bernabe-Angel. Coronavirus: How to cope when your dreams get cancelled. Tanner Burke. Jon P Co. Rachelle Mae Mendez.
Destinee Bell. Biggs , and especially Pakes , the latter of whom, citing Gadamer, urges a return to the work of art as an object of research. If the focus content will be argued more of investigation is on the creative process, one fully in chapter 7, and particu- larly in its final section. Both the material content sophical context is not to be and the immaterial, non-conceptual, and non- confused with the use of that term in art history. See also note discursive contents of creative processes and artis- 4 in chapter 7.
In all cases, art research should examine the embeddedness and situatedness of its ob- ject of investigation. The epistemological question With what kind of knowledge and understanding does research in the arts concern itself? And how does that knowledge relate to more con- ventional forms of scholarly knowledge? The short answer to the first question is: knowledge embodied in art practices objects, processes. A first avenue of approach derives from a tradition, extending back to Greek antiquity, which distinguishes theoretical knowledge from practical knowledge.
As early as Aristotle, the concept of episteme, in- tellectual knowledge, was contrasted with techne, practical knowledge re- quired for making poiesis and doing praxis.
The concept of phronesis, or practical wisdom, in particular the knowledge of how to conduct one- self particularly in a moral sense , can also be understood in opposition to intellectual knowledge, which was known to be deficient when it came to worldly wisdom Carr ; Kessels and Korthagen Notably Gilbert Ryle , and after him Michael Polanyi , and the art theoretician David Carr , , elevated practi- cal knowledge — which, being tacit, implicit knowledge, finds no direct discursive or conceptual expression — to an epistemologically equal foot- ing, and Polanyi even saw it as the foundation of all knowledge.
The non-conceptual knowledge embod- subsection of chapter 7, pages ied in art has been analysed in many different Their relationship de- serves to be investigated further. Some contributors to the debate on the specificity of research in the arts entertain the belief that art comes into being purely on the ba- sis of intuition, on irrational grounds, and via non-cognitive routes, and that this makes it inaccessible for investigation from within.
This mis- conception arises when the non-conceptual content of artistic facts be- comes confused with their presumed non-cogni- This is a crucial passage. It in- volves the cognitive claim made tive form, and when the non-discursive manner in by research that has non-discur- which that content is presented to us is presumed sive and non-conceptual char- to betray its irrationality.
Yet the phenomena at acteristics. Part of the specificity of art research therefore lies in the distinctive manner in which the non-conceptual and non-discursive contents are articulated and communicated. The epistemological issue of the distinctive character of art knowledge is also addressed by phenomenology, by hermeneutics, and by the cognitive sciences. The a priori of the legacy and its influence on the body assumes the place of the a priori of intel- cognitive sciences, see the final section of chapter 7.
Parviainen and also in gender studies. I have already mentioned hermeneutics as a vehicle for accessing what is at work in art. The fundamental ambiguity of artworks renders interpretation an unfinished process in which the interpreter and the in- terpreted temporarily melt together in ever-receding interpretative hori- zons. Embodied knowledge has also been one of the focuses of research in the field of cognitive psychology, as in the work of Howard Gard- ner on multiple intelligence or that of Hubert Dreyfus on artificial intelligence.
The zone between cognition and creativity is now even under exploration in collaborative projects between scientists and artists.
The distinctive nature of the knowledge content has been analysed in depth in phenomenology, hermeneutics, and cognitive psychology. I am fol- See for example Choreography and Cognition cc n.
Under what premises can such research be done, and, in conjunction with this, should such research orient itself to or con- form to approved academic or scientific standards and conventions? In fact, one could argue that only artists are capable of conducting such practice-based research. But if that is the case, objectivity then becomes an urgent concern, as one criterion for sound academic research is a fundamental indifference as to who per- forms the research.
Any other investigator ought to be able to obtain the same results under identical conditions. Do artists have privileged access to the research domain, then?
The answer is yes. Moreover, the activity at issue here is research in art practice, which implies that Obviously there must be limits. New fields of research materi- alise in a productive combina- Just as with the ontology and epistemology tion of different disciplines, e. Transdisciplinary with mainstream scholarship. As a rule, the natural sciences ological and epistemological have an empirical-deductive orientation; that is, senses and in the valorisation of the research.
In chapter 4, pages their methods are experimental and are designed , I will investigate to what to explain phenomena. Experiments and labora- extent artistic research is trans- tory settings are characteristic of natural science disciplinary; in chapter 11, pages , I will examine the trans- research. The social sciences are likewise empiri- disciplinary nature of artistic cally oriented as a rule; their methods are usually research more closely in the not experimental, however, but are primarily de- context of jar.
Quantitative and qualitative analysis exemplify social science research. One method developed in the social science disciplines of ethnography and social an- thropology is participant observation. This approach acknowledges the mutual interpenetration of the subject and object of field research, and might serve to an extent as a model for some types of research in the arts.
The humanities are as a rule more analytically than empirically ori- ented, and they focus more on interpretation than on description or ex- planation. Characteristic forms of research in the humanities are his- toriography, philosophical reflection, and cultural criticism. The natural sciences likewise seek to gener- ate exact knowledge that corresponds to universal laws or patterns, but which, contrary to mathematical knowledge, is often obtained by ex- perimental means. These can be contrasted with art history to cite just one example from the humanities , which is not primarily interested in formulating precise, universal laws, but more in gaining access to the particular and the singular through interpretation.
Experimentation plays virtually no role there at all. The distinctive position that arts research occupies in this respect now comes into view. Research in the arts likewise generally aims at in- terpreting the particular and the unique, but in this type of research practical experimentation is an essential element.
Hence, the answer to the question of art research methodology is briefly that the research de- sign incorporates both experimentation and participation in practice and the interpretation of that practice. In summary, research in the arts is performed by artists as a rule, but their research envisages a broader-ranging impact than the devel- opment of their own artistry.
Unlike other domains of knowledge, art research employs both experimental and hermeneutic methods in ad- dressing itself to particular and singular products and processes. If we now take together these explorations of the ontological, epistemological, and methodological facets of research in the arts and I am indebted here to Nevanlinna I agree with the author in acknowledging that the comparison is rather rough. Moreover, especially in view of the evolution of modern science and recent insights in the philosophy of science, classifications like these should definitely be viewed with scepticism.
For example, it is very common today, particularly for non-physicists, to point to the incommensurable paradigms of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, and classical mechanics in order to emphasise the interpretive nature of scientific knowledge. In conjunction with the earlier answer to the question of how art prac- tice-as-research can be distinguished from art practice-in-itself, we now arrive at the following definition: Art practice qualifies as research if its purpose is to expand our knowledge and understanding by conducting an original inves- tigation in and through art objects and creative processes.
Art re- search begins by addressing questions that are pertinent in the research context and in the art world. Researchers employ ex- perimental and hermeneutic methods that reveal and articulate the tacit knowledge that is situated and embodied in specific art- works and artistic processes.
Research processes and outcomes are documented and disseminated in an appropriate manner to the research community and the wider public. Coda: Legitimacy Research on the supervision of practice-based research projects in the arts Hockey and Allen-Collinson ; Hockey has shown that one difficulty experienced by both PhD candidates and their su- pervisors lies in the distrust and scepticism of those around them — in- dividuals in their own institutions as well as those in wider circles — with respect to research of this type.
Overcoming institutional barriers and per- suading other people claim a disproportionate amount of time, quite apart from the fact that this usually has little to do with the actual topic of research.
The issue culminates in the question of whether research in which the creation of art is intermeshed with the research process is in- deed serious scholarly research, and whether it is PhD-worthy Cand- lin a, b. Some would argue that although research-like art practices in themselves can or do have value — a value comparable or even equivalent to that of scholarly research — we are nevertheless dealing with two unlike endeavours: true research on the one hand, and on the other hand an activity that must be kept distinct from re- search, even if it might be of equivalent value from a societal or other viewpoint.
Opinions differ on this point in the debate on practice-based doctorates in the arts. I would suspect that This still remains an issue. The distinction between PhDs and profes- sional doctorates has existed in the United States for some time. In addition to equivalence, another theme in the PhD-versus-PD debate in the arts involves the nature and orientation of the doctoral degree. Another proposal, partly aimed at avoiding an un- wanted proliferation of titles and to keep the system of degrees trans- parent, is to introduce a so-called inclusive model see e.
The entire spec- trum from theoretical research to design research, from the natural sci- ences to classical studies, from dentistry, food quality management, and civil engineering to theology, fiscal law, and creative arts, could all be encompassed within that PhD degree.
The misgivings about the legitimacy of practice-based research degrees in the creative and performing arts arise mainly because peo- ple have trouble taking research seriously which is designed, articulated, and documented with both discursive and artistic means. The difficulty lurks in the presumed impossibility of arriving at a more or less objec- tive assessment of the quality of the research — as if a specialised art fo- rum did not already exist alongside the academic one, and as if aca- demic or scientific objectivity itself were an unproblematic notion.
In a certain sense, a discussion is repeating itself here that has already taken place and still continues with respect to the emancipation of the so- cial sciences: the prerogative of the old guard that thinks it holds the standard of quality against the rights of the newcomers who, by intro- ducing their own field of research, actually alter the current under- standing of what scholarship and objectivity are.
If the comparison with the emancipation of the social sciences is at all valid, then there is still a long way to go. Even after two cen- turies of debate about the fundamental premise of social science, some people, both inside and outside the universities, still question the au- tonomy and legitimacy of that domain of knowledge. On the other hand, the rapid development of a new discipline like cultural studies may also give cause for optimism.
Perhaps I would be going too far to call for a paradigm shift, but I do know for sure that a shift in think- ing is needed in the minds of some people. We knew we would face tough resistance, and though that may dampen our spirits from time to time, it is a challenge we can meet. At the end of the chapter, I intro- duce two themes — contingency and realism — that will return in chapter 5 and particularly in chapter 7. It has prompted others to work from within to expand or redefine the prevailing conception of academic or scientific research from the perspective of artistic research.
Both these strategic and po- litical agendas have their merits, but also their shortcomings. In the former strategy, artistic research is in danger of becoming isolated from the settings in which society has institutionalised think- ing, reflection, and research — particularly the universities.
Under a guise of artistic nonconformity and sovereignty, some people put up resist- ance to the supposed disciplining frameworks of higher education and research. It is not uncommon to see superficial, theory-meagre borrowings from what happens to be on offer in intellectual life being put to use in artistic production. In principle, of course, there is nothing wrong with that. After all, much is permissible in the context of artistic discovery that would not withstand the test of academic justification the same can, inci- dentally, be said of mainstream research as well.
Yet the logic and the internal dynamics of art practice do, in fact, differ from those of most academic disciplines — which at least keep up the pretension that ex- plorations, findings, and insights need to be somehow connected to the- oretical justification or further thought. I am aware that ways a lurking danger.
But at the same time, there is a difference between a higher education in the arts is — or ought to be — task one sets for oneself and the ways it gets implemented in the place where the cultural past meets current practice. Artistic research benefits when carried out in such a context.
Arts education also — fully consistent with Humboldtian ideals — ben- efits from the inspiration and impulses it receives from develop- ments in artistic research practices. One already distinguishing feature of arts education especially compared with what is customary in most of the higher education system is its in-house integration of training with practice, as artists make their current work into part of the ed- ucational subject-matter.
A fine example of such productive alliances may be witnessed in the research fellowship programmes now operating in the UK and in Norway. A modest start has been made in the Netherlands, too, by enabling artists to hold research posts in arts institutes. Hypothetically, the introduction of artistic re- search into an academic environment could broaden and enrich our 1. In terms of both methodology and knowl- edge dynamics, the focus on the creative process that is characteristic of research in the arts, as well as the characteristic linkage and inter- penetration of artistic practice and theoretical reflection, of doing and thinking, would be a valuable asset to universities.
Hence, in an epis- temological sense as well, artistic research would provide a benefit, or even a correction to what many people regard as the doings and deal- ings in mainstream science and research. But this positioning of artistic research also has its shortcomings. By this I am not referring to the understandable resistance in certain academic circles interestingly enough, notably in In humanities circles, one disciplines such as art history to the introduction encounters both opponents and of practices and mores that, at first glance, violate proponents of the emergent the received forms of scholarship and academic field of research.
Although seri- ous arguments do play a role craft-work. It might take some getting used to for here, far too often these can be certain people, but the history of science shows seen to be corrupted by money that new research objects, methods, and claims al- and power. The new field is per- ceived as a threat by those who ways meet resistance.
One just needs to steer a fear it will deprive them of middle course between assimilating with what is funding. In this respect, the current institutional ad- 2. Terminological questions like these are not without import. Science in English has a much more restricted meaning than the Dutch wetenschap or the German Wissenschaft, as the latter also encompass the humanities.
The German Forschung, by contrast, is more likely to refer to the mores of the natural sciences than is the case with the Dutch onderzoek or the English research. For an elaborated account, cf. Cobussen No, in referring to the shortcomings of university artistic research I mean something more fundamental — a fundamental deficiency that seems immanent in the relationship between art and the university.
In a certain sense, this is even true of the relationship between artistic re- search and higher education as a whole, hence including institutions of arts education. It is a deficit in the relationship between the artistic and the academic. Thus, it almost seems as if the isolationists I was crit- icising earlier will turn out to be right after all.
This deficit is best de- scribed as a certain unease, a restlessness, an agitation that arises because the contingent perspectives offered by artistic research practice are rather at odds with the quasi-universalistic knowledge claims of the academy, and even seem irreconcilable with them. Or are they? This is the question I want to address here. Practice-based doctoral programme in music Since , I have been involved in developing and implementing doc- artes, a practice-based doctoral programme in music.
In developing the programme, we have made use of insights de- veloped elsewhere in this field. Reports published by the UK Council for Graduate Education ukcge ; ukcge on practice-based doctorates in the creative and performing arts and design were partic- ularly helpful to us as we designed the research environment, put to- 4.
See docartes n. As it now operates, the programme starts with a two-year research training course as part of a pathway to the doctorate lasting four to six years. Seminars on the philosophy of science and on artistic research and the aesthetics of music are held, and there is a hands-on seminar on research in and through Thirty-nine doctoral candidates music.
Students also learn how to collect data and were enrolled as of November to present and document their research. The pro- , and four had obtained gramme is now in its fifth year, and twenty stu- their doctorates. More are to follow in The first degrees should be awarded in As a rule, their practice-based masters courses at the music colleges have prepared them inadequately for doing research.
This problem is linked to a more general issue I would like to turn to now: the amount and kind of re- flection that ought to be part of a practice-based doctoral course.
What kind of theoretical reflection should we expect from researching artists? And how does that relate to their artistic practice? We teach them to write and present academic papers. We introduce them to the standards of systematic research and the prin- ciples of philosophy of science. But could we be starting at the wrong end? Are they meant to develop into fully fledged scholars, as well as reflective artists? Before I dis- cuss these further, let me highlight two recent occurrences that illustrate these issues.
The programme bears the sub- title Performances, Images, Sounds, Objects. Yet as we delve further into the programme specifica- tions, we read that beyond text does not mean without text. So in spite of its focus on practice, this scheme seems to do more to deepen the gulf be- tween theory and practice than to bridge it. I will not be attending these conferences and sym- posia, but wonder if those within the old parip communities might feed in?
Either way, the sense of unease — the uneasy tension between artis- tic research and the academy — has seemingly vanished. Peace has been restored, and the feeling of dissonance overcome. Second occurrence. Also in October During a panel debate, one of the confer- ence speakers, Johan Haarberg, founder of the The Netherlands Organisation Norwegian Artistic Research Fellowship Pro- for Scientific Research nwo , gramme, was challenged to explain the relation- in cooperation with the Nether- ship between theory and practice in the pro- lands Foundation for Visual Arts, Design and Architecture gramme.
Some degree of con- a doctorate programme for visu- textualisation can be expected. The de- velopment of the third cycle in The central issue addressed at the Amster- the arts in Europe is the focus of dam conference was whether and how research the Erasmus academic network opportunities for artists could be created in the share Step-Change in Higher Arts Research and Education ; Netherlands after the masters degree.
One of the see also my annotation in chap- talks at the conference described the creation of ter 2, page Neither the Berlin third-cycle course for artists nor the Nor- wegian programme awards a doctorate PhD.
At the Berlin graduate 5. Practice-based research by artists such as musicians is not eligible for recognition as PhD research. This, of course, reconfirms once more the separation of theory from practice, and of research on the arts from research in and through the arts.
The Norwegian pro- gramme, in contrast, views artistic research as a fully fledged, legitimate type of research at the third-cycle level. Al- though it does not culminate in a doctoral degree PhD , it is nonethe- less deemed by the state to be of equal standing.
And the answer? Well, to start with, no theory Research and knowledge What do these two illustrations tell us? To begin with, we can at least gather from them that a debate is still in progress about the issues of discursivity and the relation between theory and practice — topics that generate a certain apprehensiveness and agitation both inside academia and outside it, in the world of art.
Is this merely a temporary feeling of nervousness and unease that will dissipate once the struggle is over? For political reasons, however, the programme avoids using the word forskning research in its Norwegian texts, employing instead the term kunstnerisk utviklingsarbeid artistic development work. See also my observations in note 2 in this chapter about variations of meaning between different languages.
First there is the concept of research. Recent evidence for this is seen in the definition of research given by the European Joint Quality Initia- tive in its Dublin Descriptors for third-cycle education: The word [research] is used in an inclusive way to accommodate the range of activities that support original and innovative work in the whole range of academic, professional and technological fields, including the humanities, and traditional, performing, and other creative arts.
It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, indus- try, and to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or sub- stantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental develop- ment to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. See jqi Changes like this are partly attributable to the emergence and recognition of other forms of knowledge production.
In particular, the phenomenon known as Mode 2 knowledge production has upset the traditional ways of thinking about the social and intellectual organisa- tion of research. Mode 2 research is characterised by being carried out in contexts of application; it is predominantly interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary; it has no epistemological core and is methodologically pluralistic; and the direction and quality of the research is not deter- mined by disciplinary peers alone.
Many scholars in such divergent disciplines as the cogni- tive sciences, phenomenology, and philosophy of mind consider the em- bodied sometimes even bodily non-conceptual or preconceptual forms of experience and knowledge to be a kind of a priori that un- derlies the ways in which we constitute and un- Constructivist realism derstand the world and reveal it to one another. And precisely these forms of experience and knowledge are embodied in artworks and practices, and play a part in both their production and their reception.
Artistic research is the de- 9. See Gibbons et al. The intertwinement of ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives — the cir- cumstance that defining an object is always at once both an epistemic act and an indication of ways to gain access to it — suggests not only that artistic practices and creative processes are themselves the most suit- able instruments of artistic research.
It also implies that the most ef- fective way of articulating, documenting, communicating, and dis- seminating the research results is not the dominant discursive one, but the way that uses the medium itself as its mode of expression. One need not deny the inescapability of language to still give primacy to the art itself in the research process and as the research outcome.
It has meanwhile become a philosophical commonplace to say that there is no ultimate epistemological ground for our beliefs and knowledge claims, and that the edifice of science and research has been built on unstable ground. This is mirrored in a methodological plu- ralism and fallibilism whereby no rule has the final word, and where research pathways have been liberated that — without sinking into scepticism or relativism — have taken leave of the rigid opposition of subject and object of research, of fact and value, of action and inter- pretation.
And it is precisely this type of methodology — which allows for the intertwinement of researcher and researched, object and ob- jective, and practice and theory — that seems the most suitable frame- work for conducting artistic research.
The broadening of what we understand by research, the eman- cipation of non-discursive knowledge contents, and the growing ap- preciation of unconventional research methods all point to a more open and encompassing understanding of what sci- Cf.
In sum, after fifteen years of debate on the institutional and the- oretical place of research in and through the arts, it now looks as if no fundamental obstacles exist to admitting this type of research to the ranks of the higher education and research establishment, and no longer any reason to feel uneasy about how artistic research relates to academia. At least, so it would seem.
Contingency and realism What I am arguing here, though, is that the sense of unease and con- cern is more fundamental, and somehow inextricably bound up with the relationship between the artistic and the academic. There is some- thing about the arts, and hence also about artistic research, that gen- erates this uneasy, apprehensive feeling. Artistic practices are reflective practices, and that is what moti- vates artistic research in the first place.
And this is not just because artists are now increasingly forced by external circumstances to position and contextualise their work and, as it were, justify it to funding bodies and to the public. The reflexive nature of contemporary art also lies enclosed in contemporary art itself. This art accepts no natural law; cannot base itself on an aesthetic foundation; has lost its normality; and makes its own rules.
It is an art that continuously starts anew at every level, from the organisation of the material to the reality presented. Art not only conceptual art is also thinking, albeit of a special kind. This kind of matter-mediated reflection has much in common with philosophical reflection.
But the philosophy involved here is one that sees itself as an un-aca- demic philosophy, as speculative philosophy. This artistic reflection, like philosophy, is a quasi-transcendental undertaking because it bears upon the foundations of our perception, our understanding, and our relationship to the world and other people.
Art is thought, not theory. This reinforces the contingent perspectives and world disclosures it imparts. It creates room for that which is un- thought, that which is unexpected: the idea that all things could be dif- ferent… This is what we may call the radical contingency of artistic re- search.
If some form of mimesis does exist in art, it is here: in the force, at once perspectivist and per- Constructivist realism formative, by which art offers us new experi- ences, outlooks, and insights that bear on our re- lationship to the world and to ourselves.
This The notions of non-conceptual- ism, realism and contingency will articulation of the world we live in is what we develop further throughout the may call the radical realism of artistic research. Work remains to be formative power, and the realism it brings to bear done here. This is the fundamental uneasiness and restlessness that haunts relations between the artistic and the academic. But if the university, if academia, is willing and able to incorporate these unstable, uneasy attributes into its midst — along with the non-discursive artistic research practices — then we can say that progress has been made.
Hence, the Towards a radi- cal academy. I was bewildered about how artistic research was men- tioned only in passing in the Frascati Manual and then shoved aside. My work in the Strategic Working Group on Research in the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences hbo-Raad enabled me to probe into issues of research policy, in particular as regards the form and dynamics of knowledge production. The ex- Imagine the following scene.
Back in the s, pression is not new, at any rate. That official assuming there is no more than one is preparing the thirty-fourth agenda point for the Twentieth unesco General Con- ference, to convene in October and November Agenda point 34 is entitled Draft Recommendation concerning the International Stan- dardization of Statistics on Science and Technology.
The preamble to the ultimate recommendation unesco 23 will state that it is highly desirable for the national authorities responsible for collecting and communicating statistics relating to science and technology to be guided by certain standards in the matter of def- initions, classifications and presentation, in order to improve the international comparability of such statistics.
Natural sciences 2. Engineering and technology 3. Medical sciences 4. Agricultural sciences 5. Social sciences and humanities. The text put before the delegates was later published in Annex 1 to the Resolutions of the conference unesco Social sciences and hu- manities is divided into two groups.
So at some point thirty years ago in Paris, someone decided that artistic research should be categorically banned from the field of en- deavour known worldwide as research and development. In other words, no one should ever think this is real research, even though the term might be occasionally so misused. Since , the distribution list of science and technology fields has been an authoritative standard in the international world of institutions devoted to science and technology and to research and development.
The definitions and classifica- tions laid down in the Frascati Manual now serve as the reference categories when it comes to describing and defining what research and development are. All self-respecting research institutes, and universities in particular, now use the manual as a guideline for their actions. The modifications are ogy, including some interdisci- noteworthy and odd, but they need no further plinary fields.
It continued to comment here. The issue I am highlighting is the classify arts research in a rather odd way see the final section of insistence with which artistic research is excluded this chapter.
In the meantime, here once again from the domain of research and some have proposed ranking the development. Is it mains, rather than subsumed perceived as a threat? To what, to whom? Artistic re- search is certainly akin to the humanities at times, but some- Artistic research versus times also to the field of science scientific research and technology or to the social sciences.
In November , the In the past ten to fifteen years, much has been Department of Higher Educa- said and written about artistic research, in relation tion Analysis of the Swedish Na- to both philosophy of science and educational tional Agency for Higher Edu- cation submitted such a propos- politics.
Author s Borgdorff, Henk. Show full item record. Abstract Artistic research is an endeavour in which the artistic and the academic are connected. In this emerging field of research artistic practices contribute as research to what we know and understand, and academia opens its mind to forms of knowledge and understanding that are entwined with artistic practices.
Henk Borgdorff also addresses how we comment on such issues, and how the things we say cause the practices involved to manifest themselves in specific ways, while also setting them into motion. In this sense, this work not only explores the phenomenon of artistic research in relation to academia, but it also engages with that relationship. Keywords research; art; academia; Art school; Epistemology. Publisher Leiden University Press. Publication date and place
0コメント