foundationsled to a minor revolution in the higher education landscape in europe, affecting not
least the schools of arts in participating countries.
still, research in and through the arts is not universally accepted as a research
field in its own right. several reasons could be mentioned in order to explain this
non- acceptance. one of them is the initial quality of practice- based research. some
of the earliest examples of doctoral work in the arts was simply not of an acceptable
standard, a fact which has contributed to suspicion from the rest of the academic
community.
This phase of trial and error should be over by now. The research field has entered
a stage of maturity. policy documents for good practice and more rigorous quality
assurance regimes in many countries have helped to shape deeper respect for doctoral
training and research activities in art schools. it is imperative that those who are
responsible for research training and quality assessment continue to develop standards
and methods in order to increase the respect for this field from other actors in the
community of scholars and researchers.
in some countries practice- based research is obviously not high on the agenda in
terms of university politics or research strategies. This may be due to a philosophical
climate where art is detached from a scientific discourse or where art schools are seen as
objects of cultural rather than educational policies. intellectual reflections on art and
practice in the arts are certainly very visible in these countries but not really defined
in terms of research. The same is true for countries that lack the european tradition of
national higher education systems dependent on political decisions.
in countries where artistic research is part of the university landscape some problems
remain to be solved. one of them is funding. if this research is competing for scarce
resources with other and more established fields, chances are that art schools will be the
losers unless special earmarked funds are set aside. in the shaping of national policies
lessons can be learnt from the different models employed in some european countries.
The advantages or disadvantages of core funding, allocations through research councils
or the establishment of fellowship programmes can be taken into account based on
recent experiences in various national settings.
it is easy to agree with conclusions drawn by hans- peter schwarz from the zürcher
hochschule der Künste in a lecture in december 2008: The research funding in arts
institutions can’t be exclusively project- based. long- term investments are necessary if
art schools are to be transformed from a ‘workshop culture’ to being future- oriented
‘arts research laboratories’.
This transformation does not entail a rejection of classical virtues in arts education.
Traditional artistic skills must of course be preserved and developed but they should be
placed in an environment of enhanced reflection and analysis.
The creation of a critical mass and the establishment of research environments
and graduate schools are also things that need to be discussed based on experiences
in a number of countries. The results of networking between art schools nationally
and/or internationally can be demonstrated and evaluated. lessons can be learnt
from experiences of multidisciplinary environments involving traditional university
departments and artistic institutions. The conditions for success or failure of
institutional mergers should be studied.