Jac, thanks for raising a number of useful points in your email and alerting
readers to the fact that other lists have been engaged in debates on
practice-based design research, practice-based doctorates etc. (for those
interested the lists 'phd-design', 'drs' - design research society and
'RIDE' are also on the JISCmail system and can be joined as you did for this
list).
To return to the discussion you started. Let me open by saying I don't
think anyone could disagree with the existence of practice-based art as
activity and output (even if they didn't include their own work under this
heading). A problem arises in distinguishing between practice-based art and
practice-based art research. There are many opinions on this. If they are
the same then perhaps we should award PhDs to practicing artists. If they
are different, what is it that makes them different? Clearly they can both
involve high levels of inquiry, exploration and presentation. One is not
easier than the other. For me the distinguishing feature of research is the
learning and exploitation of procedures and outputs which turn a personal
journey into something which can be shared, discussed, compared and
evaluated. In my own experience I found the discipline of PhD research
improved rather than restricted this personal journey.
So for me the difference between practice-based art and practice-based art
research is that the latter requires participants to integrate (not merely
juxtapose) their art practice with the discipline of, for example, reviewing
the work of others, documenting and justifying the approach taken,
referencing the work of others, and generating an insightful statement about
the activity and outputs. Traditionally this is done in a written form but
we have seen much greater variety in output in recent years and this is to
be welcomed.
You may say that some artists working today are doing all of this and I'm
sure that at the boundary are all sorts of artist-reseachers and
researcher-artists. A problem arises when people feel compelled (because of
all sorts of internal and external forces) to operate in a way they are not
comfortable with. Some of the debate seems to be an attempt to shift the
boundary while the speaker sits still!
Thanks for setting this ball rolling I hope others chip in.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jac Saorsa [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 November 2001 10:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: any comments?
>
> Dear colleagues,
> It seems a shame that the Drawing Research list is not a very active one
> at present so may I suggest a line of discussion in the hope that we can
> get some dialogue going. To briefly introduce myself, I am currently in
> the early stages of PhD research in drawing practice at Loughborough
> University and as I consider myself an artist before an academic my
> project is predominantly "practice-based" - a term which I have come to
> realise is much debated. I have read much discussion around the validity
> or otherwise of such work within the research context and certainly the
> PhD Design list is persistent in keeping this issue alive. The latter
> however, naturally enough, bases the discussion on design rather than
> "fine art". I feel that there is a definite distinction between the two,
> and this is where perhaps a different spin on the subject might be an
> interesting move. Certainly a thread on the status of fine art practice -
> in this case specifically drawing -! in respect to the general debate
> around the credibility of practice-based research generally would be more
> than helpful to me at this stage in my study.I would very much like to
> hear anybody elses views.
> Best wishes,
> Jac Saorsa
>
>
|