foundationsstatics by Carl Culmann in 1865 contained text as well as images for the validation of
this as an alternative method.
Both gaudí and Culmann exemplify the use of non- linguistic forms for the creation
of new knowledge. however, in gaudí’s case, the non- linguistic form was essential
to the creation of knowledge whereas in the case of Culmann’s graphical statics, this
knowledge could have been reached through alternative forms of notation. nevertheless,
these are both very interesting examples of a practice – whether it is drawing something
or doing something or making something – that results in a solution to a particular
problem without the intervention of text- based language. These examples also serve
to reveal a fundamental difference between practice and academic research: the latter
seeks to make explicit its claims and rationale, often through text because text allows
a meta- commentary on why the technique works and not just a demonstration that it
works, as occurs in practice. Regardless, most creative practices are not undertaken in
order to have concrete outcomes and contribute to knowledge. Rather, the majority of
creative practices are undertaken to produce experiences.
Creative practitioners often consider experience as the most important contribution
of the artefact and that it therefore has an essential role in the outcome of the practice.
however, experience is a problematic component in academic research because of its
philosophical subjectivity, by which we mean that it relates to the individual’s personal
experience. What is experiential is first- person, and therefore cannot be shared
with other people. Because experience is something personal, its transferability is
problematic and thus goes against the value of accumulation and the idea that there is
something that can be shared in order to build a body of knowledge and interpretation.
according to the practice community values, what is shared is the event rather than
the experience that each one has of it. The event is the form and the experience is
the content; this is why the performance or the exhibition is a meaningful activity to
that community. The academic choice for the argument- driven thesis reinforces the
value that the community places on the transferability of impersonal knowledge, i.e.
the aim is that everyone receives the same content from the same academic text. The
academic community is dissatisfied with a performance or exhibition because these
result in a diversity of experiences rather than in the unambiguous communication of
the intended content.
Towards the production of the experience, the encounter with the artefact is
central to the creative practice community. however, academic research must be
contextualized so that it is clear where the contribution to knowledge is going to be
made. This contextualization requires a level of transferability and that the researcher
step beyond the particularity of the artefact. although the linguistic medium is an
efficient way of addressing that requirement, it is perhaps not the only form. The
practitioner- researcher could contextualize an exhibition with another one, or take
the viewer through a process prior to being presented with the work in question. one
of the advantages of linguistic form is the ability to abstract from the particular and
discuss the matter in more general terms. For example, when one is confronted with
a piece of classical music, it is hard to take that as a representative of the genre of
classical music. its structures and particular performance constantly remind one of just
‘this’ piece rather than facilitating thinking about classical music more generally. on