We spent a lot of time reviewing what constitutes research, knowledge, understanding, information, and "new". I can just about get my head around most of them, but the terminology that worries me is New. I don't think I have ever had an original thought in my life. I worried a lot about this on my BA, until I realised that at that level, you don't need original thought. What you need to do is read widely, pull together several strands of thought and present conclusions to the problem that you set yourself. I thought a Phd was the level of study that required original thought and a significant contribution to new knowledge. If I am honest, I had not really thought through what the requirement was for a Masters degree.
However some of the discussion that was useful to me was to move away from considering Knowledge as a noun, and to consider Knowing as a verb. The noun implies a static state, whereas the verb implies a continual activity, that is always developing. School teachers have given me feedback that my writing style includes a lot of active verbs, so maybe this is a natural way of working for me. Another factor with my craft work and making, is that once I have made something, I lose interest in it. I rarely have the desire to keep it. So does this reinforce my preference for action (and verbs) rather than ownership of objects (and nouns)?
We looked at different types of art research:
research into art (art as subject of enquiry);
research through art (art as method);
research for "art" (which transforms the conception of art).
Then it all got very interesting as we considered the middle option as Research Through Art as Rhetoric (and the experience of rhetoric). Rhetoric means the art of effective communication, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques (possibly artwork?). I find this quite helpful, as my work as a textile artist to date, has involved using domestic and mundane objects to convey a message about how we see and value people. I aim to communicate a message effectively, and increase the value of the people represented by making public artwork about them. For artwork to be research, it then has to increase both knowledge and understanding, and have a pertinent artistic format. Art research is different from scientific research as it goes beyond facts and conclusions but explores current issues in order to uncover a new or different perspective. I think my interest in under-valued people might fit well here, as I want to recognise the unsung heroes.
The AHRC (Arts Humanities Research Council?) favours process over explanation. I found this quite strange until it was explained research that has an unsuccessful outcome (or a potentially unsuccessful outcome) can be very useful. Also commercially focussed research always seeks a profitable outcome, which restricts the range of research and might lead to falsification of stats (Volvo pollution tests?!). The AHRC stresses the importance of 3 features: Research Questions, methods and context.
The first time I met Linden Reilly, our tutor, she was insistent upon the importance of methodology. She said the methodology dictates the outcomes, particularly when you don't know what you want to find out. That evening I was reading a book on Cornelia Parker, whose Magna Carta artwork I greatly admire. I saw her artwork Negative of Whispers. Parker had noticed how the heights climbed by mountaineers is compared to multiples of the height of St Paul"s Cathedral. So Cornelia Parker (who is terrified of heights) took a mountaineer on a tour of St Paul's, and ended up crawling round the Whispering Gallery on her knees, due to fear. This led to Parker noticing the thick layer of dust between the railings and using this as a material to make earplugs for a mountaineer - mute objects to put in ears at high altitude. Had she not had a tour of a high building as her methodology, she would not have found that particular outcome!
 |
| Cornelia Parker, The Negative of Whispers, 2010 |
No comments:
Post a Comment