The debates about art practice as a research method have been going on for quite a while, and it reminds me a of spiral, with the discussions winding round tighter and tighter from the outside in, until we can come to a point where everyone can agree. I’m not sure that can really happen. I’m also not sure it really needs to happen.

There are people outside art practice who look in at our debates and wonder why, stating that:“ All research is practice based – look at chemistry or any of the sciences, you need to be a practicing scientist,/ chemist to do research in that area”

The reasoning looks sound, and I can agree. Why all the debate and fuss? Well, because art is a little bit different from science in that recognised PhD research in art has predominantly actually been art history/ theory. Unlike art, there is no way that PhD research investigating the history of the sciences would result in a science qualification. The researcher would be awarded a history qualification focusing on the sciences, and this is our problem: many people doing research into history of art get an art qualification, often with no distintion that it is actually art history or theory and that they are not makers at all. So the whole practice-based research thing is a means of making a distinction between those who are actively engaging in the practice vs those who do not practice.

I personally think that the default meaning of “art” when it comes to research should be art practice and not, as it currently is, art theory. Really instead of saying practice based research (which it really all should be, as in the sciences) research which does not involve practice should defined by its lack of practice : ie Art Theory, Art History etc, so that when someone says plain old “Art” it is recognised as being the practice of art, rather than the theory of it.

I’ve recently come to a conclusion (that makes sense to me) as to why art practice as a research is so difficult to define. It is because ultimately when an artist makes something, they can be answering up to 4 questions at once though their practice. Think of a geological diagram with different stratas of rock:

1. the bedrock layer = conceptual concerns of the artwork
2. the subsoil = the nature materials/ medium and logistical issues it may pose
3. the topsoil = themes that the artists works with in order to unravel the conceptual aspects, and to provide content f they are exploring the physical aspects of the medium
4. the garden that we see on top = the aesthetic concerns, what the artwork looks like

my sketchbook: thinking through drawingI know I need to flesh out this theory a bit more and I can see lots more pretty drawings in my head, but here are some initial thoughts on it. When one makes an artwork, there are the ideas and concepts to explore/ convey, but there are also the material/ physical aspects of the medium that one is working in. Armin Medosh, doing a PhD at Goldsmiths, talks about art based research as “material thinking”. I agree with this concept, which can be about using the medium/ material to think physically, putting theories into practice, and challenging them. It also relates to what Glenn Adamson discsusses in his book Thinking Through Craft. It is all about a totally different model of actually thinking and addressing questions.

It is a rich multilayered way of working, and I think one of the problems is that because when one makes art, words mostly go out the window, it is often very hard to articulate to others what is going on inside one’s head, and I don’t think many artists even realise the richness of what they are doing. When making, many artists reach a meditative state (also called by some as : “in dwelling”) where one is so absorbed by what they are doing they cease to exist per se. Its not just art that this happens in, it happens in any discipline or activity that a person can lose themselves in. So if one is addressing a number of things at once in a world where there are no words, of course it is going to be rather hard to disseminate things, especially if one is not really aware of the value of what they are doing, or that their practice can relate to other fields.

This, too is another issue that we have as art practioners: art-practice research has an inferiority complex, and no wonder, artists for so long have among other things been labelled as unreliable, crazy, mad, unstable etc. What hope is there for confidence when the term “arty-farty” is an insult? I think slowly this is changing, but we have a hell of a long way to go before it will be universally accepted that those engaging in art-practice as a form of research can be as rigorous and articulate as anyone engaging in science-practice research, and that what we have to contribute is of equal (if not more) value. I’m hoping that my research, as well as contributing to knowledge as a whole, will help illustrate that not all artists are unreliable, self-serving naval gazers.