the accumulation of knowledge in the artistic field is a form of research. Artists carry out research about the reality that surrounds them, about themselves, about their instruments of work, and about the complex network linking these. Artistic research means that the artist produces an artwork and researches the creative process, thus adding to the accumulation of knowledge. (Artistic research,(2005) Mika Hannula). But my question goes to how many of the artists really undertake research and could we consider research as what is left from the technique of a post-modern artist? You know.. nowadays, except of some good painters and sculptors that base their works on a physical technique, the others base it on ideas. And the best example is the flux of ready made use in conceptual art, or actually the best in terms of economic growth, well... the creative industry. According to this little booklet i'm reading about artistic research, what it points out as objectives for artistic research to become a legitimate practice in academic field are:
- producing information that serves practice
- develop methods which are linked with the processing of creative work
- increase understanding between art and its social
- interpret art works as cultural, political and pedagogical products
- critically analyze art and its future trends and understand its relationship with technology, economy etc
- rethink and question the role of the artist
AIMS: a democracy of experience and methodological diversity
so... all sounds good, to me. finally a chance for art works to support the needs of humanity. Artists have to get down from their bohemian world and help the world we re living in and hopefully (with this new dimension in their perception as humans) might start with a new approach. this is why i totally support this type of research after 2 months of thinking of its actual purpose. it is a chance for artists to see more, understand more and perform better for the better of society.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire