A fabulously interesting read which has helped me to frame my thinking for this project was the collection of essays on ‘Art and Artistic Research’ which essentially looks at the importance or otherwise of research to creating great art.
The essays within the book mostly originated from papers presented at the research symposium “The Difference of Art and Artistic Research” held at Zurich University in April 2009, and present a number of different views on the subject of research and if it is needed for creating artwork.
There are widely varying views within the book. For instance Nina Malterud from Bergen University believes that research is necessary (Caduff et al, 2012, p. 24): “…can you make art without research? My answer is “no” – at least not art that is interesting, relevant, excellent. Maybe the amount and nature of the research involved in the artistic process is just the decisive factor for the quality of the final result, the artwork.”
Michael Schwab, from the Royal College of Art in London, meanwhile believes that research is essentially a supplementary function which is not necessary to the artistic process and that artistic research in itself is an idea that needs to be further developed (Caduff et al, 2012, p. 65): “…the definition of ‘artistic research’ needs to be delayed, because its becoming is part of the transformation of practice. As a consequence, artistic-research practice is as yet unidentified; what it is must be a continually delayed art and non-art at the same time.”
Yet another view is put forward by Johann Oberg from Gothenburg University, who highlights, as with my aims through Cloneography, that the pursuits of art and scientific research practice can often now be found mixing together (Caduff et al, 2012, p. 45): “It is… my hope that the unmapped space in between research-based art and arts-based research will remain a territory of promising, free, and unpredictable inquiry, owned by the people working in that field, and supported by insightful politicians, deans and chancellors.”
The book is set out into chapters, with the first looking at overall views, the second looking at the disciplinary boundaries of artistic research, the third discusses the questions from the artist’s perspective and the final chapter looks at and discusses concrete artistic research projects. I particularly here liked the term “new morphologies” (Caduff et al, 2012, p. 180) coined by Kirsten Langkilde and Stefan Winter from Berlin University to describe the convergence of the natural sciences and visual arts: “There is a profound change in the visual universe, in which a concept previously conveyed with direct clarity is now conveyed through signs and complex masses of data. This process is changing the elements and stages of artistic productivity…”. These points in particular made me see the relevance and importance of learning about emerging practices around generative design.
Overall, this yearbook produced by the Zurich University of the Arts is full of interesting, and short and snappy, essays which are really vital reading for MA students in the artistic media industries. I have been able to take many of the principles and arguments included within it to help influence and guide me on my own artistic journey for ‘Cloneography’.
Being able to access books like this through the 24-hour library at the University of East London has also been great, as it has meant I have been able to fit it around other commitments. This has enabled better research and the ability to condense that research into artistic practice through my Creative Practice project.
Caduff et al, (2012), Art and Artistic Research: Music, Visual Art, Design, Literature, Dance (Zurich Yearbook of the Arts), University of Chicago Press
Cloneography 