reasons to research

This article was written in 2005 for „Research Art“, published by the European Lrague of the Arts (ELIA) and Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK)At That time Klaus Jung was Professor and Head of the School of Fine Art at Glasgow School of Art.

The term ‘research’ is increasingly found alongside words like ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ and it is interesting to note that calls to step up support for creativity have firmly entered the parliamentary debates in the United Kingdom and beyond [1]. In their attempt to prepare for survival in a globalised economy, politicians and industrialists come together to emphasise the importance of investing in research and creativity, to stimulate innovation in order to compete with energetic levels of economic growth in countries like China and India. This should bring us as artists – particularly when we are involved in shaping Higher Art Education – into a prime position. After all, do we not consider ourselves specialists in creativity? We need to ask, however, whether we are speaking about the same concept when we consider how creativity assists economic growth or how it contributes to the cultural and social development of our societies. In the context of Europe, individual national ambitions to increase the focus on research were consolidated when a European Research Area (ERA) was heralded by the European Union in 2002. The ERA is intended to work in tandem with the expectations of a European Higher Education Area. Of course, when governments advertise their intention to support research, it does not necessarily indicate an interest in the wellbeing of individual researchers, but research should be supported to keep our societies developing with a focus on the future. If we want to make a case that the arts are of vital benefit to this development, it might be wise for artists to get a foot in the door of the ERA to ensure that the understanding of research is enriched by comparing, challenging and juxtaposing scientific methods with artistic approaches.

Towards an Art-specific Research Culture
The concept of research in the arts is constructed very differently in Higher Art Education and the professional art sectors across Europe, which is hardly surprising as it concurs with the perception of rich cultural diversity. The many nuances we find in discussions about the arts and their role within society is mirrored in the wide range of approaches to research. It is also obvious that there is not a singular route to finding answers to research questions across our disciplines. As much as researchers in Philosophy, Medicine, Technology or Mathematics travel differently in their investigations, designers, architects, performing and visual artists will walk in different styles as well.

One thing we in Higher Art Education seem to have in common, though, is the ambition to highlight the importance of the contribution that the arts can make, not only to the cultural development of our societies but also to the production of knowledge. The often-vaunted ‘knowledge society’ is not just a conglomerate of well-informed individuals; knowledge is a shared social value arising from the contribution of many. As Joseph Beuys phrased it, ‘Jeder Mensch ein Künstler’ (Everyone an Artist) [2] , which summarises his vision that the ultimate sculptural process is the shaping of our societies, a process in which everybody can, and should, participate. With this in mind, we may be able to claim that artists are well equipped to contribute to the ongoing, organic development of knowledge, but a lot of research still needs to be done to embed this in the broad academic and public domains.

Understanding difference, living with difference, even loving difference, must be the basis for valuing diversity. This means we must build knowledge of ‘otherness’ as attractive rather than as a threat. At its best, art is challenging, stubborn, insistent, rigorous and often controversial on its own terms and carries with it the potential to embrace difference, not only through analysing details but by insisting on seeing the whole picture.

The potential of research in and through the arts has been recognised by many European countries. At the level of supporting practice-led doctoral studies alone, we can observe an impressive level of success. The University of the Arts in Helsinki, for example, awarded the first Doctorate of Arts in 1991. By the end of 2005, the total number of doctorates was forty-six [3].  Could it be claimed that this has also contributed to the success of the Finish technology industry by adding a well-acknowledged design angle to its production? 

Doctoral programmes are also established at the Academies of Fine Art in Helsinki [4],  Gothenburg [5],  and Malmö [6],  to give a few European examples. In the United Kingdom, this is mirrored by an even longer tradition; the first practice-based PhD in the arts was completed in 1979 and, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency [7], a total of 1048 students completed doctoral studies in the creative arts and design between 1994 and 2004. Acknowledgement of the significant contribution of the arts to the research agenda in the UK was made when the Art and Humanities Research Board became a Research Council in April 2005, on a par with the support systems for all other forms of research [8].

Our art-specific research history is very young, in comparison with centuries of experience in other forms of research. Many mistakes still need to be made before we can safely announce that art as research has achieved a place at the round table of the research guardians. One reason to take part in this process is to emphasise the importance of the role of the arts, maybe as a bitter-tasting enzyme, necessary to break down the potential fatty deposits of innovative overproduction into creative energy worthy of a 21st century society.

The Territory of Research and the Arts
 We should not forget, however, that advocating art in the context of research is an area of potential conflict and that the borders between practice and research remain blurred. From artists studying anatomy to inform their representation of the human figure to collaborations with science and technology, research – to enable artists in their practice and in preparation for making works of art – is a common and well-established phenomenon. To claim a unique and original contribution to knowledge it is necessary, however, to understand that art praxis itself is a powerful method through which to undertake research, although that does not necessarily convert all art-making into research. 

The term used to describe the lifetime achievements of an artist is ‘a body of work’. As such, the success of one artist’s production cannot be measured by the quality of a single artwork; it is the complexity and consistency of a whole oeuvre which makes it into something that moves culture and maybe even our societies. Research is different; the targeted focus on one aspect at a time, formulated in a precise question, can lead to answers being sought through a more methodological approach. 

Just as art spans a lifetime, artists can undertake it perfectly well without even thinking about research. Or, research may be a small sector of that journey, relevant at a certain stage, underpinning, supporting or redirecting further art-making and linking it to our professional communities and/or to society. Art in a research context and research in an art context rather delicately position artists between two quality-evaluating institutional agencies – the art world and the academic world. A difficult translational balancing act is required for artists to be understood and acknowledged in both camps while simultaneously maintaining their individual integrity and many artists shy away from entering this twilight zone full of traps and pitfalls. 

Applying the notion of research to artistic praxis implies a level of empiricism that is often at odds with the subjective approach of artists: "I had to do this, because I just know that it is better for my work." This is how we are trained to make decisions and this is what makes art such a strong alternative way of learning. Each and every step forward must be based on an individual decision, by evaluating a whole range of options through a critical appraisal of the historical and contemporary context, but we cannot do things simply because ‘one does so’ or because all the others in our peer group do it this way. How can we prove that this extremely individual and subjective approach has relevance beyond the artist her/himself? How can we turn it into a self-confident but comprehensible activity?

Reasons to Engage
The main reason for those working in the arts to engage with research is to claim value for the joint knowledge of our societies. To prevent marginalisation, we have to ensure that creativity, as we understand it and have fine-tuned it over the centuries, is recognised as an effective driver for the development and sustainability of our world. 

Artistic approaches may be edgy, full of contradictions, welcoming too many risks and with an excessive sense of the essential, constantly-shifting focus from details to the bigger picture, reconciled with intuition, sometimes painstakingly simple and methodical, sometimes rather non-scientific and confusing, aiming to grasp rather than analyse and understand, but it is an approach which produces knowledge after all. It is in our own interest as artists to place our practice right in the centre of our social communities, rather than on its outskirts in a distanced – though highly cultivated – orbit. This includes an engagement with research and, while it might be uncomfortable to broaden our artistic horizons and allow research-equivalent thinking into our discourse, avoiding doing so, or even resisting it, could prove to be fighting the wrong windmills. 

[1] See Sir George Cox, Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s Strengths, December, 2005: 
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/cox_review/coxreview_index.cfm and Jack McConnell, First Minister of Scotland, St Andrew’s Day Speech, 2003 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/News-Extras/176
[2] See also the interview with Joseph van der Grinten, in memory of Beuys’ death in 1986 at: www.wdr.de/themen/kultur/bildende_kunst/beuys_20ter_todestag_2006
[3] www.uiah.fi and “Dissertations of the University of Art and Design”, 11- 20 January 2006, Media Centre Lume Gallery
[4]  http://www.kuva.fi/portal/
[5] www.konst.gu.se
[6] www.khm.lu.se/english/forskar/forskar.html
[7]  www.hesa.ac.uk/
[8]  http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/