differentiaL i ConograPhyToday’s practice of visual art demonstrates, though, that time has come to abandon
monolithic thought framed in binary models of truth (the hermeneutic method)
and illusion (the visual creative method) and declare them obsolete. moreover, art
practices show that art and method could link in various constructive ways, since a
shift has emerged from art practices focusing on end products to art practices dealing
with experimental, laboratory- style environments and researching novel forms of
knowledge and experience. in other words, artistic practices have become dynamic
points of departure for interdisciplinary experiments governed by reflexive perspectives.
Time and again, the concept of research as such unmistakably evokes certain
expectations. obviously, research implies organized modes of approach, systematic
information, and significant contributions to the knowledge and information economy.
Furthermore, research points to ethical responsibilities such as a better understanding
or improvement of the world. are those the utmost characteristic elements of research
(cf. Chapter 3)? one could also argue that each form of research is focused on
developing and formulating a methodology. Research may or may not be inspired by
a great cause or an accidental discovery (‘serendipity’), yet ultimately lead to novel,
methodologically formulated forms of knowledge. The force of the method seems to
determine the value of the result. Therefore, continuous control should clarify how
methodological conditions have been applied and to what extent. although research
methods obviously differ with regard to field and subject, they still share a fundamental
basic principle: methodological research is primarily engaged in formulating questions
and providing answers. Thus, research as such could be described most adequately as
the methodological interconnection of both questions and answers, and answers and
questions.
as mentioned above, a similar interest in research activities has emerged in topical
artistic work. in the visual domain, however, the trans- or interdisciplinary research
conducted by artists in their artistic practices is not characterized by an objective,
empirical approach. art knows a different form of research strikingly described during
one of the first european conferences on artistic research by sarat maharaj as ‘spasmic,
interdisciplinary probes, haphazard cognitive investigations, dissipating interaction, and
imaginary archiving’ (maharaj 2004: 50). That form of research cannot be channelled
through rigid academic- scientific guidelines dealing with generalization, duplication,
and quantification, since it engages in the unique, the qualitative, the particular, and
the local.
in that respect, artistic activities still perfectly match Baumgarten’s classic definition
of the aesthetic domain, where knowledge is described as a knowledge of the singular.^2
although artistic knowledge as mathesis singularis – because of its focus on the singular
and the unique – cannot be comprised in any sense in laws, it does deal with a form of
knowledge, says Baumgarten. Yet, the aesthetic domain’s emphasis on the singular and
the unique does not mean that artistic research is impossible as, for example, philosopher
of science Karl popper tried to bring to the fore. after all, artistic research completely
satisfies the most fundamental research criteria with its focus on the importance of
communication, critical attitude, and autonomy of research.
in contrast to academic- scientific research and its stressing of generating ‘expert
knowledge’, the domain of art deals with a different form of knowledge called
experience- based knowledge. Whereas pure scientific research is often characterized