CharaCteristiCs of visuaL and Performing artsthough they too can be re- installed (Bishop 2005). in live art, the artwork is a more
or less context dependent event.
some performance forms are also memorising practices (schneider 2001). Tradition-
ally many performers like to downplay the role of documentation since they ‘are’ the
documentation themselves. portraits can be made or press photos taken, but the per-
formance itself would not be reproduced, since the interaction with the audience could
not be represented properly. most artists today are accustomed to document everything
and are not hostile to cameras, but it is still common to assume that it is impossible to
document a theatre performance. a dance performance can be documented much more
easily, simply because many choreographers use video as a tool to make notes in re-
hearsal. in contemporary ‘performative’ practices, documentation often constitutes the
final artwork, since the actual performance takes place for a non- art audience, or un-
beknownst to the public. This tendency to value the document over the event has also
been criticized by live artists. These approaches to reproduction and documentation
have an impact on research practices, which mostly require systematic documentation.
The question of ownership, who owns the artwork, or who has the right to use it, is a
related issue. is the artwork something with an independent existence, or is it bound to
the repeated action, presence and performance of the artist? or is the work something
created in a shared exchange with the audience, the spectators or participants,
something produced as a relationship between those present? Key questions can be:
how to combine (commercial) production and research; or how to do artistic research
in a meaningful way without creating a full production? a large production is often
too complicated to be suitable for research, except in reflection. unlike performed
poetry or drawing, for instance, dance and especially theatre and film need heavy
material organization, both for production and for studying them. many experimental
productions are produced in harsh circumstances, far from ideal for research.
The care and concentration devoted to studying an artwork can be different if it is
seen as a conceptual statement, a conservable investment object, a consumer product
or a celebratory event. is the ultimate value of the artwork to be deemed by a virtual
posterity or in the momentary encounter between performer and spectator? is the most
esteemed artwork the longest possible running show for the largest number of paying
spectators seeing a film, or the legendary action art event almost nobody has witnessed
but almost everybody has heard about? These traditional (simplified) notions have
consequences for research practices. and they are reflected in traditional art research
as well. it seems to be more difficult to consider a momentary event to be worthy of an
extended research process than a tangible art object that can be returned to repeatedly.
sometimes simple but radical works are studied more eagerly than huge and complex
shows, unless they are considered culturally or socially important phenomena.
Besides these (and other) differences in the presumed characteristics of an artwork
in various art forms, the place of the artwork in the research process can vary. The
artwork or performance itself can function as data for research in various ways. making
the artwork or the performance can function as a method of research. The artwork or
performance can be the result or outcome of the research. and of course the artwork
or performance can function as a presentation or distribution of research outcomes.
This dimension is the one performing artists often feel most comfortable sharing and
therefore one on which they focus in research contexts as well, by making presentations