[-empyre-] practice-led (5 theses)

[Danny Butt]

Hi all

I've also enjoyed this month's discussions which were the terrain of my own doctoral research. Last year I published a more polemical account of exegetical writing in Mute <http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/art-exegesis>, and like Sophia and Sally Jane I think the question of institutional genre is paramount, and this question lends itself to polemic. But what is really at stake intellectually and aesthetically is the form of life, and so for the last year post PhD I have been trying to polemicise less and propose more. And spend more time working within artistic institutional frames which have always needed the critique that research-oriented practices provide more than the university has, because the university does not yet hold the historical responsibility for the discipline of fine arts practice, just as it did not for science until the 19th century. If the university 'needs' the fine arts at the moment, this is a financial rather than intellectual attachment, as some of the more cynical posters to this discussion have accurately described. Perhaps then the university's (highly repressed) need for practice-led research may lie in the mode of institutional critique historically associated with the visual arts, particularly as has been noted a history of feminist/performance work, where the strategies of instrumentalising formal enquiry in situ may offer valence to aesthetic knowledge against the financial rubric of the neoliberal university. 

So in that opener I am narrativising this already. I don't want to dismiss this problem that underpins Johannes' provocation. The genre question has a long way to go in this terrain, and that the academic modes of writing being conceived by artists in universities could be a starting point. (Ironically, the customary forms of analysis developed by *art critics* seem suddenly attractive to many university-based artists in resisting the life-sapping methodological calisthenics from the unholy alliance of anglo-analytic models of propositional knowledge and managerial bureaucracy!) So with a nod to rule-based aesthetic reflection and the more extraverted manifesto form, here are some theses on practice-based or practice led research.


1. All knowledge is disciplinary knowledge, and the disciplinary criteria that can assess the contribution of practice-led research to a discipline have until very recently been set outside the university. These criteria relate historically to the disciplinary frames of the humanities more than the techno-sciences, seeking singularisation of the work rather than generic dissemination of the conceptual frame underpinning the work.

2. Importation of scientific terminology (propositional questions, consensually defined methods, falsifiable results) corrodes knowledge in creative disciplines, except as far as it is treated as content, rather than method. Scientific objectivity's moral economy is based on a fear of idolatory, seduction, and projection on the part of the researcher - these are exactly the means by which the creative artist makes their contribution to knowledge. The scientific model of knowledge rests on an author who is fully in control of their work, whereas in the creative arts such authors are boring, and therefore useless, however academically justifiable.

3. Since Alberti, visual arts practices have been erratically theorised as a mode of world-making that can be classed as writing in the broad sense. Despite the efforts of the protestant sciences to make an individual responsible for their own knowledge, a writer is inevitably dependent on a suitably prepared reader, and it is this other reader, not the writer, who can account for the knowledge-effects generated. Respect for the reader or viewer requires that the work be available for independent critical interpretation, a freedom and independence that since Kant has been essential to the operation of the aesthetic. Exegetical writings are thus counter-productive except as far as they enhance or constitute the freedom and independence of the work. These writings may be particularly useful in resisting the synchronisation of the art work to the art market, but probably less so in resisting the synchronisation of the artistic practice to the academic market.

4. The archive of university knowledge is not a flat globe of knowledge to be "contributed to" but a contradictory historical tangle, resting on material and political assumptions that can never be escaped or accounted for in the aftermath of colonial capitalism. One value of practice-led research might be in de-framing knowledge through formal analysis in order to make the materiality of various forms of knowledge perceivable.

5. Any creative practice worth the title of a doctor of philosophy should have wrestled with the potential of its own death, including the death of its discipline. Artists, unlike scientists, are not licensed to practice.


I've been meaning to throw something into the mix here all month, thanks everyone for the stimulating discussions. What may have clinched it on this hot Melbourne morning was seeing that my patchy archive of empyre messages totalled 9999, and making a contribution seemed like an appropriate way to celebrate the anniversary of a diverse and engaging forum that has been critical in my own understanding of the practice/research conundrum. I certainly believe there has been more critical and intellectual pressure applied on empyre than in all the research evaluation exercises completed everywhere.

x.d

--
http://www.dannybutt.net
http://www.local-time.net
 +61 428 820 766

On 24/01/2013, at 9:31 AM, sophia lycouris wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> I'm sitting here seeing with the corner of my eye all the messages, coming into the space of the monitor of my laptop, one after the other all day (in actual fact for several days due to your generous contributions), while I'm working on my desktop computer between meeting students in my office or their studios, reading drafts of all levels and proposals, talking to candidates in person, on the phone, on skype, so many emails and queries, as this is a time when candidates apply for funds... And I never have time to contribute to lists, but most importantly I find it very hard to get into arguments when things take (what might seem to me as) the wrong direction. And so, I tend to avoid getting into such situations rather systematically.
> 
> But this topic is very familiar to me, and I have been feeling worried for a little while. I used to think that the conversation about specific names of PhD degrees involving practice, which would indicate where the contribution was or what was the specific process employed by the candidate, stopped some years ago. I was glad that this didn't seem necessary anymore. When this was happening in earlier years, I felt that this was part of a concern to justify the very role of artistic practice as part of academic research, in general. It looked as if this was adding precision, clarity, 'scientific weight' that would legitimise the undertaking. But at the same time it was generating a series of templates. I always thought that this was too dangerous and would defeat the purpose of the undertaking, it would compromise, or even completely cancel, the 'composition'.
> 
> For me the kind of academic research we do which includes elements of practice is 'compositional', and to be more up front with this idea, I consider this type of research  more emphatically compositional than any other (as I have to admit that I see all forms of academic research in any field or discipline as inherently operating at some sort of compositional level, ie materials brought together in relation to criteria and assumptions, processed with consideration of context(s) to generate outcomes which get materialised in formats acceptable and legitimate because they appear as coherent within certain conditions) - well... I just opened a can of worms, as someone might point out to that this is not at all their idea of what 'composition' is... but never mind.... 
> 
> So, for me, it is this compositional element that counts, and what constitutes the unique contribution of artistic research (that takes place in the context of the academy) to the overall field of academic research. We, who work in the arts, can go into considerable depth in this direction and then share our discoveries/constructs/experiences/techniques about composition with specialists in other fields. We, in the arts, specialise on how to create systems in order to produce entities through using carefully selected materials and processes - and these are entities in their capacity to display coherence, presence, perhaps even agency, within a set of given conditions. 
> 
> But how can composition function in relation to templates unless they are used to serve the purposes of a compositional device? This is why I get worried each time I sense the need to examine how successfully a doctoral project sits within existing templates in order to establish its level of clarity, precision and rigour.
> 
> But I really didn’t come out of my shell in order to attack or criticise anybody. I simply couldn’t resist the urge to share with you how much I agree with the points contributed by Simon in the last message. Yes, the epistemological framework is the place where clarity is necessary. This is what determines the nature of the 'system', the conditions of the undertaking, which make possible the generation of outcomes that make sense, or do not make sense (within a new awareness proposed). What kind of assumptions operate in relation to the knowledge territories we engage with and explore, the knowledge positions we advocate, within which our compositions emerge in order to be meaningful, or just strongly present. How do these compositions resonate within an environment, interact, engage and trigger change, or undertake change.
> 
> In these conditions, it doesn't matter whether it is possible to pin down the contribution within a predetermined aspect of the overall entity. It is the overall compositional quality that counts, it is the coherence of the undertaking in relation to materials, processes, context and form of presentation, which generates an entity that refers to and contains both its processes and form with consistency in relation to the points of reference it has been constituted. It is the appropriate level of awareness of the epistemological framework and its parameters that makes possible the generation of a successful composition (within an academic environment). And this will be infinitely varied, hybrid and quite often generative, but it will vibrate with right kind of relevance within its chosen context. This is where I think the contribution lies.
> 
> sophia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [mailto:empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Simon Biggs
> Sent: 23 January 2013 20:06
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Cc: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] practice-led
> 
> These distinctions between practice-led-based are at best fuzzy. I'm not keen on using the terms exclusively. There are many ways of doing a PhD with creative practice as a key element and to try and distinguish between two models ignores the diverse approaches and methods that can be employed. One of the advantages of creative practitioners doing PhDs is that they are not as methodologically constrained as those working in many other more conventional academic subjects. Hybridity is default in this area and the methods any one candidate might work with can vary, depending on the epistemological frameworks they are engaging. I rarely find PhDs that are weak because of their methodology. That is to say, they might be weak in method, but that is not where the problem began. Usually it starts with the theoretical basis, framework, context of the project. If the project lacks such focus then its methods are likely to lack rigour simply because there are no criteria against which to measure an outcome without a theoretical context. The place to begin a PhD is at its end, understanding who will be reading it and why. The end of the PhD is at its beginning, being able to articulate that from the outset.
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity.
> 
> Simon Biggs
> simon at littlepig.org.uk
> s.biggs at ed.ac.uk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk
> 
> On 23 Jan 2013, at 10:52, Cecile Chevalier <C.Chevalier at sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> In response to Keith...
> 
> Unfortunately Practice-Led or Practice-Based research are themselves lost in translation from one field/institution/individual/reference to another, which in my opinion is one of the problem art practice has as research - if basic terminologies and definitions  such as 'Practice-Led' or 'Practice-Based' could be agreed or constant - we would get a clearer impressions of "how we [as research practitioner]manifest in the world" of art practice as research. 
> 
> 
> Another definition, find online, that reflected some of the readings done in the early stage of my PhD...
> http://www.creativityandcognition.com/research/practice-based-research/differences-between-practice-based-and-practice-led-research/
> "If a creative artefact is the basis of the contribution to knowledge, the research is practice-based"
> "If the research leads primarily to new understandings about practice, it is practice-led." (and therefore no absolute in having a final artefact produced)
> 
> Cécile
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] on behalf of keith armstrong [keith at embodiedmedia.com]
> Sent: 23 January 2013 01:55
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: [-empyre-] practice-led
> 
> Hi All
> 
> Its a curious thing trying to follow a list that balloons dramatically overnight and contracts also entirely when Im awake (European predominance!)  with various threads that intermingle: interesting too that some single posts don't make the digest and vice versa as far as I can see.  I can say Adrian Miles never sleeps (or maybe he's in Europe?) as he's onto the thread beautifully!  There seem to be also many voices that speak but garner no response - quite understandably .. all in a days list work I guess!
> 
> Clearly we are up against a range of very diverse positions that don't necessarily see what we do as either artists, creatives or academics or blends thereof in similar lights as you'd expect.
> 
> To note I don't think anyone with some form of university support (even with other tasks thrown in) should underestimate how valuable that can be for being able to keep ongoing focus on research (which is about 'contribution') : its truly a privilege .. allowing  more capacity, regardless of load,  to turn good artwork into transmissible forms of research (lets just think of this not as an imposition maybe but as generous extra layers of communication we can provide for others / as well as additional capacity for understanding 'whats actually going on') - - in my mind this does not 'necessarily' have to mean a train load of papers  'on top' - there are many other ways ..  that include statements for database recordings, web site entries, lectures and plain old conversations amongst peers.
> 
> Interestingly too, to add - there is also a clearly understood fact from psychology that the impressions of who we think we are and how we act rarely match  with how we manifest in the world. (e.g. I may think Im quite green and tell you so because I recycle my bottles, and yet I might make 5 international flights a year ..)
> 
> In terms of distinctions of research this may be helpful"
> 
> Practice-led research is that in which the creative practice leads the research in such a way that its major findings reside in the practice itself, which then becomes a central component of the examinable outcome. The thesis comprises more than 50% (up to 75%) of creative practice and less than 50% (to a minimum of 25%) of accompanying written text or exegesis, which illuminates / interprets / contextualises the creative practice. The research occurs through the practice which  informs methodology, content, context and conceptual frameworks.
> 
> 
> 
> Practice-based research also places practice at the centre of the research, but its findings provide insights about the practice even if they are discovered through the practice. The creative practice itself is not normally an examinable component of the thesis even if the creative process may be a major part of the methodology. A documentation of the practice becomes part of the thesis but not the practice itself. The word length is normally the same as a written thesis.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre