[-empyre-] FW: Research in Practice, week three, January 21-28

[Janna Holmstedt]

 Dear all

Thank you for this generous, engaged and insightful conversation!



In response to Phi Shu’s and Miguel’s latest postings, as well as Keith’s,
I would like to share some reflections from the field of Fine Arts in
Sweden, which might be interesting since the *translation of the
degree **konstnärlig
doktorsexamen** to English is still a work in progress at the Swedish
National Agency for Higher Education. T*he use of the term “doctorate in
the fine, applied and performing arts” is only temporary. The reason for
this I will get to below.



I am a PhD candidate since 2010 and I work with multimedia performances and
performance installations where the visitor is at the heart of the work in
question. There is no audience in the traditional sense and the work
doesn’t occur, or exist until the visitors agree to step in and become part
of the situation offered to them. Wireless headphones are used and the
situation at hand is a vital part of the non-linear narrative that unfolds,
which is interrupted by instructions to the listener to act, interact or
behave in certain ways. I don’t consider myself a new media artist (despite
the fact that my work heavily relies on technology), maybe because I come
from an experimental theatre background and a critical arts practice. In my
research I focus on complex, embodied and relational situations and an
orally oriented sensorium, or should I say an orality-literate mode of
communication. This inevitably leads me in the direction of language
criticism, which also affects my view on research. (
http://www.jannaholmstedt.com/projects/whatyouseeisnotwhatyouget.htm)



In 2009 the requirements for a doctorate degree in the arts changed here in
Sweden. The big difference is that now it is possible to conduct your
research on artistic basis, before it was on scientific basis (this shift
was important for me when I applied). Thus a traditional academic written
thesis is no longer required, instead the “documented artistic research
project” is considered to be the thesis. (
http://www.konstnarligaforskarskolan.se/wordpress/?page_id=55)

How much artistic research should differ or divert from scientific research
is lively debated. There is a strong movement in favor of developing a new
research field where artistic research is understood as research in and
through the artistic process (rather than research about, or for, art). It
could be argued that the reason for the insistence on artistic research as
an autonomous field in it’s own right (which doesn’t imply that it isn’t
interdisciplinary), grew out of a dissatisfaction of that art has very
often been used as a complement, and for it’s revitalizing effect, in other
research contexts. There is also a general interest (not only within the
arts) in developing new modes for interpretation, critical thinking,
representation and communication, etc. that are not restricted to the
textual.



*Currently only two universities have the general right to award a *doctorate
degree in the fine, applied and performing arts (or Doctor of Philosophy in
Theatre, Visual Arts etc. as it is also temporarily called). Until the
others have been approved, all PhD candidates beginning after 2010 are
connected to *Konstnärliga forskarskolan* (a national research school in
the field of arts). Before 2010, researchers in the field of art were tied
to another institution outside their own, for example KTH Royal Institute
of Technology, which had the right to award the degree and the researchers
had to adapt the academic procedures in use there. This has been the case
since the 1990s.


What this recent change will bring with it still remains to be seen. I find
it extremely vitalizing but also extremely difficult for all the reasons
brought up here in this forum. At least I don’t feel obliged to parade in
funny costumes, as Miguel put it, and I deeply sympathize with Keith’s
statement: ”If we lose our passion and our raison d'être under the heft of
the bureaucracy and 'metric-slated' imagination, then frankly - we are
likely to slide towards mediocrity (cementing the popular if rather unfair
wisdom that failed artists need universities to survive). Should then we be
doing something else?”



Thank you for sharing,

Janna



Janna Holmstedt

www.jannaholmstedt.com

PhD candidate in Fine Arts, Umeå Academy of Fine Arts, Umeå University,
Sweden


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Miguel Santos <miguel at santosmiguel.com>wrote:

> Hi Phi Shu
>
>
>
> > Quite clearly, in the context of creative practice, knowledge can be
> communicated in many different ways, therefore upholding the written word
> as the de facto method of assessment is a mistake and I think it is the
> duty of academics in this area to communicate to those holding the purse
> strings that actually, the written word is not the only means of
> communicating valid research outcomes.
>
>
>
> I agree with you when you say that "knowledge can be communicated in many
> different ways" but the context for a PhD (practice_based_led or not) is
> always an academic context rather than a creative practices context. You
> are being assessed by members (employees) of academic institutions, the
> piece of paper that you receive with your name and new title (Doctoral of
> Philosophy not Doctoral of Creative Practices) is stamped by an university
> and you are invited to parade with funny costumes. Its an academic context
> (like it or not).
>
> best, Miguel
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20130125/88b7d877/attachment-0001.htm>