Is art practice research?
The reason for research and PhD study can be understood as an essential shift in the written record of art and design. It adds the voice of the critically informed primary author, thinker and maker to those that respond and react (the curators, critics and historian) and have dominated the written record. This shift in the written record has already begun to reshape the knowledge that defines the discipline in the UK.
The answer to the title question about practice as research; is yes... and no. In my previous life as Associate Dean for Research at University of Wolverhampton, we came to understand art practice as research that was relevant to the UK research assessment exercise if the artist/author could specify a research question or hypothesis, the methods which are brought to the research, as well as identify the social, intellectual and creative context in which that material research was delivered. The intent of this analysis was to establish national/international reputation for creative originality and impact in the field (with necessary critical response, if the authorship is confined to material practice). Where these conditions were met, practice qualified as research, although it is not the ideal form for the long-term creative/intellectual development of the discipline (for reasons stated in the first paragraph), this position led to two definitions:
- The Practice of Art: implicitly understood as research
Art practice is creative inquiry in relationship to media, content, culture and/or one’s subject or discipline. It is often defined by the technology, media or process which is the form disseminated and experienced. The product of art practice has a primary focus (and value) based upon creative authenticity and its reception. It most often results in a material or performative contribution to knowledge. That contribution is validated by curators, critics and historians.
- Art Research: an explicit approach to theory in practice as knowledge.
Art research is creative inquiry in relationship to society, disciplines and subject experts. It is defined by its interrelationship with those similarly engaged on common topics. The product of art research is unique but intellectually transparent. Aspects of the work are imitable, applicable or replicable by individuals beyond the primary author. It results in material/performative and intellectual contributions to knowledge.
The difference between practice and research (as a means to make a contribution to knowledge) lies in the level of transparency (here the ability to access the complexity of the work, rather than the need to replicate the experiment as the sole condition of truth) and the commitment to a social discourse. These definitions were developed (at the University of Wolverhampton) as a way of differentiating the way we would approach staff, versus what we were looking for in new PhD students, with the understanding that integrating the material and social discourse is an essential step for any subject that seeks to develop a rigorous research culture.
It is also important to consider that art research can be understood in relationship to hundreds of years of practice based research in medicine, material science and engineering; where ideas, historic practice and methods are reconsidered, redeveloped or simply replaced by new ideas and ways of doing things (tested and developed in practice) with materials, tools and technologies. The studio is no different than the laboratory - when a proper inquiry and critical social discourse with like-minded colleagues can be clearly ascertained.
Just because the work exists in the realm of material, theory and imagination is no reason to suggest that research in the arts or design, is any less valid than similar work done across the other disciplines and subjects that occupy academia. If there is a question that is properly contextualized, the methods are lucid and realistic, and if there is a likelihood of new knowledge that can be ascertained when compared against historic/contemporary examples, then research is present. As art is a practical and intellectual inquiry, we can also make contributions to theory/concept or material/technique by testing through practice. In such cases our contribution to knowledge is both clear and relatively impervious to the intellectual challenges which have haunted our academic discipline for over a century.