foreword by hans-Peter sC hwartzxxixinstrumental motivation. it is possible that the dynamics of the complex hybridization
process of the practical arts and art reception is also due to the fruitful diversity of what
we today call art- based research. hybrid media art, which requires its own research to
steer production and reception processes or even produce a work of art from them,
took advantage of all the methods and parameters for its research that it found and
considered useful. That is why, as michael schwab demanded somewhat apodictically,
‘the definition of art- based research must be postponed for a good reason as its creation
is a part of the transformation process of practical art’ (schwab [forthcoming]: 71).
only a brief look at everyday research carried out at most universities of art shows
that the focus on only one individual concept of art- based research could miss out on
some of the facts, and the research published in this volume offers convincing examples
and justification. not only is a new research method tested, but so are several ‘old’ and
disciplined and some new, still undisciplined, research methods with an antagonistic
relationship toward one another, especially concerning competition for financial and
personnel resources – an everyday occurrence at universities of the arts.
in addition to what has been said, the complexity resulting from the sheer number
of research methods is an advantage as current research at universities of art is not,
or not yet, carried out in accordance with fixed methodological guidelines. in its most
interesting examples it is trans- disciplinary and therefore follows a line of development
that now has to be arduously captured by traditional research cultures in the humanities
and the sciences.
This trans- disciplinary basic understanding represents a considerable advantage
over most mono- disciplinary approaches to research dealing with art at scientific
universities if we assume – and this is my opinion – that art- based research is not
only a self- sufficient theoretical structure but also the driving force of innovation for
art production and art reception. a withdrawal from the discourse concerning the
continued development of the arts represents a further reason underscoring the need
for independent art- based research.
in order to guarantee innovation, innovative and therefore trans- disciplinary
research infrastructure has to be developed at the universities of art. at the beginning,
they may well be informal, individually oriented networks, but they must be given an
adequate place in university curricula. although this may sound like a platitude for
the theory of science, it is absolutely essential considering the predominance of modest
ideas of teaching at any universities of art. First, however, the myth of institutionalized
education in the arts has to be deconstructed: the alleged self- renewal process of
teaching at universities of art triggered by practical experience outside the academic
sphere.
To a large extent, an agreement reached during the anti- academic period of secession
in the heroic phase of modern times holds that innovation in teaching is guaranteed
by the fact that teachers are simultaneously also practitioners and therefore practise
their ‘true’ profession outside the university. Consequently, the real avant- garde was
(and is) conceivable only outside government institutions. except in a few reformed
universities, this resulted in rather craft- oriented curricula characterized by taking the
master craftsman as an example or by a culture of shaman- like laying of hands in the
style of Joseph Beuys, which was analysed by Beat Wyss in a perceptive and sardonic
publication (Wyss 1997: 64ff.).