navigating in heterogeneitythree types of practice- based experiments: explorative, move- testing and hypothesis-
testing (1991: 68f, 144ff.). explorative experiments are set into scenarios through
active, playful actions that can never be checked, while move- testing experiments
assess a solution, and hypothesis- testing experiments are used to determine whether a
hypothesis is true or false. For schön all these categories are fundamentally solution-
oriented. But the artistic approach also has the power to cut through conventional sets
of meaning and challenge the hegemony between question and answer in knowledge
production. This means that both move- testing and hypothesis- testing strategies can
be drawn into creatively constructing artistic explorations, not to confirm ‘a correct
answer’ but to formulate (alternative) game rules of performance. art can simply
be a very efficient way to see hidden connections in a problem situation, to switch
perspectives, formulate complexities and reach new understanding.
explorative experiments should subvert conventional strategies; shake up ingrained
patterns of thought; provide quick feedback, increased curiosity, and discoveries of
hidden possibilities; reveal possible links and points that need to be mapped; and get
the creative process moving forward. The driving forces in the explorative process are
invention and discovery. added to this are sensitivity to improvisational possibilities
and systematic contributions that, through links and key points, successively connect
to other research and follow up on operations. Choosing the game rules becomes
particularly important, therefore, in the initial phase of explorative experiments.
This includes choices of representation or other modes of communication. The
multimodal possibilities to communicate in art help the research process to work with
heterogeneneity, not against it.
explorative experiments run the risk of, on the one hand starting from a totally
open approach with too vague questions or, on the other hand, diving into the already
well- known. The difficulty lies not in the creative, explorative activities themselves,
but rather to expand the ‘moment of discovery’ through a series of sufficiently drastic
interventions and surprises, with precision in actions and perspectives. The researcher-
artist- designer should train the patience to linger – with joy and confidence – in the
complex and ‘fuzzy’ state of exploration and uncertainty, but at the same time to
make a situation respond and drive discovery forward as strongly as possible. This is
game playing and dance, a choreography involving researcher, material and situation.
it is meant to ward off both leading and overly general questions, and instead strive
for precise yet opening inquiries that can expose something qualitatively new about
the situation, develop alternative links, generate other approaches, give additional
unanticipated insights, test and discuss relevance, confront with critical perspectives,
and avoid the pitfalls of prematurely seeking final answers.
explorative experiments could start anywhere in the symbiosis between
conceptualization, perception and the making. The process may begin by questioning
the meaning of, let us say, the bedroom as a concept of private space; asking oneself
how it could be conceptualized differently. or, it could begin with an observation of
how people behave in a shopping mall and question the conventions of these collective
spatial interactions. or, one may investigate how two materials are combined, trying
out a series of alternative ways of putting them together or tearing them apart. all these
quite simple and precise starting points would probably generate many alternatives for
further action. Choices have to be made: what is at stake here, how to play with this,