This was an excellent talk, on the 11th March, about art and research. This person was talking about jar-online.net and researchcatalogue.net which are both well worth checking out. There were a number of things that I thought could be pretty helpful.
One was the idea of an art practice as an outcome – I have heard of this before but I guess hadn’t really considered the possibilities of simply developing a practice as a contribution to knowledge in itself. That could be useful – I’m concerned with finding a way to do a particular thing, so perhaps if all I find for now is a method, that could be one of my answers. He also referred to the agency of not only a thing but also a practice…
According to Borgdorff, an art research epistemology is inherently embodied and enacted – excellent. That’s a great viewpoint and I like it.
He refers to art variously as constituting non-propositional forms of knowing (useful for the Wittgenstein debate!), non-conceptual knowledge (really?), and refers this to Baumgarten’s sensuous knowledge and post-structuralism. I know little about Baumgarten. There’s some stuff about actor network theory.
Our relation to the world as a whole […] is not one of knowing. – Stanley Cavell
The work of art, like that of philosophy, is the reorganisation of ourselves. And this reorganisation, this work, aims at understanding. – Alva Noe
Borgdorff talks about discursivity, practice as writing, as making a claim. There’s a discussion at the end about linear and non-linear forms, about submitting a composition with accompanying ‘sketches’ that make an argument of it. This sounds like what I’m trying to do, in making work in series. Spell it out. But a thing that art can do that’s different to writing is to be non-linear, pluralistic, non-hierarchical (some piece of writing can do this too – start wherever you like, end wherever you like) – that’s why art can be useful to mathematics.
The thing that sets art research apart from art practice is the way that it relates to its context.
These look great: