Dialogue Between Art and Science

What represents a scientific approach in relation to artistic research? How can science and art engage in productive interaction? These are some of the issues that Henrik Oxvig, associate professor, MA (research degree) and director of doctoral studies at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture discussed in his presentation at the research seminar.

 
By Anna Krarup Jensen

In his presentation Henrik Oxvig, associate professor, MA (research degree) and director of doctoral studies at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture discussed whether we ought to operate with two categories of research: artistic research (artistic development work) and scientific research. The key word is dialogue: dialogue between art and scientific research, and Oxvig’s point was that this dialogue can be based on a common interest in relation to research, that is, on the discovery and examination of possibilities. Henrik Oxvig believes that this dialogue is necessary in art studies, and that it is capable of adding something new both to art and to research.

Qualification Framework

Henrik Oxvig pointed to the qualification framework that has recently been launched by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The framework focuses on three dimensions: knowledge, skills and competencies. The framework not only defines criteria for the bachelor and master levels but also for the Ph.D. level.

• Not surprisingly, the knowledge dimension on the Ph.D. level specifies that Ph.D. candidates must develop new knowledge and understanding based on scientific studies.
• The skills dimension specifies that researchers must be able to analyse, assess and develop new ideas – on a methodological and a practical level.
• Henrik Oxvig pointed to the final dimension as particularly interesting in relation to artistic research: the dimension of competences.

Competences

According to the competence dimension, researchers must be able to “plan and manage research and development tasks in complex and unpredictable contexts”. Henrik Oxvig emphasises that this appeals exactly to artistic research, which can be characterised as innovation.
Ph.D. scholars in the field of arts not only have to master scientific methods; they also need to be able to bring these methods into a dialogue with the element of innovation. Mastering this dialogue should be a core competence for Ph.D. scholars in art studies, said Henrik Oxvig. He pointed in particular to the dialogue between art and science, where in some contexts it is art that teaches science to do research through experimental approaches.

Brunelleschi’s Perspective Panel

Henrik Oxvig offered examples of his points from work and research pertaining to spatial relations, which is his own field of expertise, and which is addressed philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend’s book “Wissenschaft als Kunst” (Science as art) (1984). For example, sociology and art have traditionally had very different perceptions of the concept of space. Sociology perceives space as something absolute – like a box or a container. By contrast, architecture has, over the past one hundred years, considered space a mode of perception defined by the elements that occur or take place in space, and which thus differs from project to project. A dialogue between art and sociology will generate new learning for both fields.

With reference to Feyerabend, Henrik Oxvig also mentioned Brunelleschi, who during the Renaissance created a perspective panel and thus invented a new space through an experimental set-up. Henrik Oxvig argued that Feyerabend’s emphasis on dialogue between, on the one hand, Brunelleschi’s invention based on experiments with the perspective panel and, on the other hand, the related concepts of knowledge that developed at the time can be seen as exemplary for the unfolding of the dialogue between artistic and scientific research.

Henrik Oxvig also pointed out – again with reference to Feyerabend – that a similar exemplary dialogue between art and science occurred around 1900-1930, when architects and art scholars together invented and explored new forms of space. Henrik Oxvig said it was obvious to follow up on this understanding in the current situation with its new demands for scientific approaches in art studies.

Research Under the Ministry of Culture

It was Henriks Oxvig’s point that the qualification framework of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation should not be transferred uncritically to the research carried out by the institutions under the Ministry of Culture. Science and research are synonymous in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation but should not be in the Ministry of Culture. Henrik Oxvig argued that we should insist that art too can be research when it engages in dialogue with science.