Artistic Research

How is knowledge generated in the field of arts, and how can we determine research that revolves around artistic practice? With this issue – research through art – as his point of departure Mikkel Bogh, rector of the Schools of Visual Arts at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, called for an open discussion about practice-based knowledge production.

 
By Anna Krarup Jensen

The possibility and existence of artistic research is a key topic for Mikkel Bogh, who is the rector of the Schools of Visual Arts at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. He was an invited speaker at the research seminar, present to offer the view of the Schools of Visual Arts concerning the challenge of defining research in the field of art. His presentation raised a number of key questions: How is knowledge generated, how is it articulated, and how is it applied – and within what contexts and frameworks? He believes that a discussion of these issues will lead to an understanding of the nature of practice-based knowledge production in relation to artistic work. He emphasised however, that the answers are not yet given – this is going to be a broad, open discussion.

Artistic Development Work and Artistic Research

A common point of view is that artistic development work is the same as artistic research. However, Mikkel Bogh argued that research is different from the development of practical artistic work.

A professor in the Schools of Visual Arts typically has an artistic practice that is based on artistic development work. This is the basis for the research-based education that the professors at the Schools of Visual Arts are required to provide. Thus, practice-based development work equals research. But, Mikkel Bogh adds, in an exhibition most artists would not be happy to have their art labelled as research. Thus, research has to be something else than the practical development work. The challenge lies in defining this “something else”.

Four Essential Changes

Mikkel Bogh pointed out the importance of distinguishing between research and development work in art. How to distinguish research from artistic development work is an issue that is currently being debated. In part, this debate is fuelled by ongoing changes in the basic conditions for research and education at the Schools of Visual Arts.

• The concept of knowledge is under transformation. Firstly, a growing degree  of transdisciplinarity requires new understandings of the knowledge concept. There is no single type of knowledge practice and documentation that applies to the entire transdisciplinary field. A contextual and dynamic concept of knowledge production – like the one found in so-called Mode 2-research – repositions the aesthetic disciplines.  
• From work production to artistic practice. Secondly, today there is a growing expectation of reflection and “research” behind the works– and of seeing this reflected in the works; of “thinking aloud”. Artistic development is no longer based on acquiring certain role models’ techniques – and similarly, art education is no longer based on apprenticeships. The acquisition and organisation of knowledge have become more integrated into the artistic process with an emphasis on development work rather than pure work production. Mikkel Bogh argues that this process is leading to changes in the concept of art and design, which leads to pressure from the field itself for more research.  
• Quality standards in research. Thirdly, there is a higher emphasis on quality and quality standards in research. The Ministry of Culture requires the education at the Schools of Visual Arts to be research-based. But the form of this research has not been defined. Previously, education was based on the professors’ own artistic practice, but many resist the notion of referring to their own practice as research. Quality standards must be maintained through evaluation methods that have yet to be developed. An explicit description of method and practice is required, as in academic research.  
• Strategic planning. Fourthly, all research in educational institutions must be included in a strategic research plan. Art schools are now also required to develop strategic plans; previously, research planning was more ad hoc. The professors’ own works, which previously vouched for the quality of their teaching, cannot be the subject of strategic planning by the school. Thus, artistic development work must be separate from research – in accordance with criteria that are yet to be determined.

The Challenge Facing the Schools of Visual Arts

According to Mikkel Bogh, these changes lead to a number of challenges for the Schools of Visual Arts concerning the need to either find a general concept of research that also includes art and design practice as research – or apply the common criteria for science and research; this approach, however, makes it difficult to view art and design as research.

The Schools of Visual Arts are attempting to implement the requirement that the professors’ own practice should have a research potential. The emphasis here is not on Ph.D. degrees but on a systematic, explorative character in the works that address the knowledge contained in the discipline. The professor must address and be able to explain the methods and theoretical framework that the works are embedded in.

The Relationship Between Aesthetics and Research

Strictly academic research should also interact directly with artistic research (“the plastic register” – here in the sense of working with non-linguistic matter). Mikkel Bogh would prefer to see the Schools of Visual Arts engage in academic research of a kind that could only take place in this particular context. Art research is the domain of universities, while research with art is the domain of the art schools.

In the time to come, the challenge is to define the distinction between artistic development work and research while also ensuring that the “plastic” links up with the academic.