Review

On diversity and singularity in artistic research

Falk Hübner

Occasionally, in the wide variety of publications about or relevant for artistic research, it is refreshing to study works that aim to contribute to the discourse that underpins the discipline. With this thought in mind, I reviewed the expanded second edition of Reclaiming Artistic Research, edited by Lucy Cotter; the first edition was published in 2019. The book offers two framing introductions by Cotter herself, and 24 dialogues with artists on their practices and works and how these connect to the two central notions of the book’s title, closely tied into each other: “artistic research” and “reclaiming”. Broadly situated in the visual arts, the book engages with artistic practices in front of the background of ever-shifting, expanding, and merging disciplinary boundaries, in which artists engage in inter- and transdisciplinary practices, including areas of mathematics, ecology, politics, or the colonial past, in relation to or through their artistic practices.

The book opens with a new introduction to this expanded edition, and closes with the original introduction to the first edition, published in 2019. The original introduction presents the objectives of the book and specifically the notion of reclaiming: Cotter’s underlying argument is that the artistic field should reclaim artistic research from the “tendency to view [it] in academic terms, and thus overlook its singularity and potential” (p. 14). She acknowledges the tension artists might feel in engaging with artistic research on a doctoral level, particularly with the need to engage in writing reflective texts within an academic paradigm. The new introduction rather focuses on the potentialities of artistic research “in a world on fire” (p. 10) and asks what responsibilities artists have in such a world. This situates the book into a direct relationship with the world in its current state, and a rather socially engaged, or activist, agenda — more explicitly than the original introduction did, and with more dedication than most publications on artistic research do.

One of Cotter’s key concerns is that the field of artistic research is too rigid, too small, too isolated, and too much tied to the area of doctoral artistic research and its institutional contexts and situatedness in predominantly academic environments, as well as being too rigid in using academic language as main medium of communication and dissemination. Cotter elaborates on artistic research as an activity that does not only belong in or to the academic and institutional realms, but rather aims to articulate the importance for a much broader field, especially the community of independent artists.

Artistic research “grants permission to artists to take the necessary time and actions (or inactions) to nourish and inform their practice, to experiment and develop their work and not only produce more work”.

To reclaim artistic research, the 24 dialogues explore and reflect on a wealth of practices and approaches to artistic process, and commit to and demonstrate both the diversity and the singularity of these practices. This includes a whole range of activities and processes that go further than the production of artistic works. So does Natasha Ginwala (“History as a Question”), for example, reflect on the relationship between biography, history, and art making in her practice as a curator. She proposes that artists’ approaches to conducting research, such as inquiring into materials, are nowadays as equal in importance as archival, historical or contextual research. These approaches all exist and work next to each other, enrich each other considerably and continuously. This multiplicity, or methodological pluralism, arguably constitutes the core of artistic research’s identity. Other dialogues engage with the notion of ‘making’, as does the one with Cannupa Hanska Luger (“Making as Future Survival”): he elaborates on an artistic practice strongly concerned with making as a form of creating the/a future; as a connection between past, present, and future. Manuela Infante (“Performance as Philosophy”) suggests theatre as an experimental place to try out philosophical ideas, such as working with posthuman philosophy and exploring ‘plantness’ through these ideas and their performative embodiment in rehearsals and on stage.

Several threads reappear throughout the book, and connections can be drawn or traced between the dialogues. For example, the dialogue with Ryan Gander (“Research as Play”) explores artistic thinking, and in particular thinking associatively in, through, and with images. This topic reappears in the dialogue with Sher Doruff (“Writing as Experiment”), which generally elaborates on her writing practice and process and the notion of her novellas as being both narrational and theoretical. One of Doruff’s methodological approaches is the approach of thinking in, through, and with images, which resonates literally with Ryan Gander.

The dialogues are given somewhat imaginative titles with a slightly poetic quality, while at the same time providing a fairly accurate general idea of the conversations’ topics. This approach clearly invites the reader to follow their own route through the book, and in my view provides sufficient direction to follow one’s curiosity in this.

Is artistic research reclaimed, actually?

Given the central position of the term ‘artistic research’ in the book, it is somewhat surprising that Cotter only marginally engages with the larger international discourse of the field and its genealogies. However, she offers several hints on her understanding of the term. Firstly, it seems that for her notions such as artistic practices and artistic thinking already have some inherent relationships to doing research, with artistic thinking being in close proximity to art’s relationship to knowledge. Within the artistic practices discussed in the book, self-acknowledgment, in-depth reflection, and “material-intellectual processes involved in the making of art” (p. 30) are certainly part of it, as is “sitting still” (p. 30). A last point worth mentioning concerns temporality: artistic research “grants permission to artists to take the necessary time and actions (or inactions) to nourish and inform their practice, to experiment and develop their work and not only produce more work” (p. 30). In doing so, it promotes ongoingness and long-term engagements in inquiry, which span (much) longer periods across the creation of multiple works.

The notion of reclaiming builds on a kind of paradox: the increasing centrality of artistic research within art practice on the one hand, and artists’ widespread lack of identification with artistic research discourse on the other. As mentioned, Cotter sees the reason for this in the large accent placed on reflective text in doctoral dissertations, in which the text more or less identifies as the work of research. Although this helps the overall argument of the book, I think this oversimplifies matters: in my experience, I encounter just as many artists who are incredibly interested and curious in the various forms of artistic research, which include proximity to academic work, reading, and writing.

This publication is an inspiring and informative source for readers interested in getting insights into a great variety of artistic practices and how the notion of artistic research is a common thread through these practices.

Cotter does go quite far in articulating a certain ‘specialty’ of artistic research, claiming that artists “embrace unknowability, being comfortable with holding open spaces of not knowing that confound traditional research” (pp. 530–31). I wonder if anyone would generally disagree with this, but the same is true for most meaningful research outside the arts, whether this concerns chemistry, philosophy, or quantum physics. It is not clear to me why Cotter accentuates the exclusiveness of artistic research so strongly, as I am sure that she knows that, for example, the notion of “bringing in oneself” or the autobiographical in research (as discussed in the dialogue with Rabih Mroué, “Fact as Fiction”) is not unique to the arts, but a rather integral element of disciplines such as anthropology or ethnography as well. Finally, while artistic research is certainly a discipline that invites multimodality of research material (texts, still and moving images, sound or performative work), this is not exclusive – other disciplines work with multimodal methodologies as well, and build on other modes of knowing that written language too.

For me as a reader, one of the most interesting resonances happens between what Cotter argues and claims in the two introductions regarding the concept of artistic research and the notion of reclaiming on the one hand, and the way in which this is explicitly or implicitly traceable in the dialogues on the other. She consciously chooses to let both themes – artistic research and reclaiming – flow through the dialogues in a relatively loose fashion, “allowing for thoughts to circle around and weave in and out of subject areas and ways of working more easily than a statement text or essay” (pp. 524–25). Undoubtedly as a result of this choice, I do find it challenging at times in which sense these conversations actually explore artistic research, and in which way they are concerned with the notion of reclaiming. Certainly, every reader needs to explore for themselves to which degree a more implicit addressing of the topics is acceptable or followable. For me, a more explicit exploration, especially of the notion of reclaiming, would bring the dialogues into a closer relationship to the slightly activist sphere of the term, and would provide a stronger sense of urgency to relate to as a reader (and artist-researcher).

Despite these critical notes, this publication is an inspiring and informative source for readers interested in getting insights into a great variety of artistic practices and how the notion of artistic research is a common thread through these practices. The book also sheds light on how artistic research processes can have an (implicit or explicit) place in contemporary art practices, and thereby extends the frame of what can be understood as artistic research. Lucy Cotter’s two introductory texts offer a discursive frame and serve as a great way to start one’s journey through the dialogues. Browsing, jumping back and forth, and following one’s instinct and interest lets the reader discover all sorts of unexpected relationships and threads. There is a lot to explore, discover and to learn beyond the agenda of reclaiming artistic research. Manuela Infante’s notion of “fooling around” (p. 230) as a way to be able to work with non-human entities or characters in a theatre show, is certainly an inspiring metaphor and appropriate method for reading and engaging with the materials in this book.

+++

Falk Hübner

is professor of Artistic Connective Practices at Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Academy of the Arts in Tilburg, The Netherlands. He has a background as composer, theatre maker, researcher, and educator.