# Anon. (2014) _The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia_. Leiden: Leiden University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia > Author(s): [[Authors/]] > Year:: 2014 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: schwab_exposition_2014 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia](zotero://select/items/@schwab_exposition_2014) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-03-30]] ## Citation ```latex [@schwab_exposition_2014] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@schwab_exposition_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation Schwab, M. and Borgdorff, H. (eds) (2014)§. Leiden: Leiden University Press. ### Introduction 아트와 아카데믹을 하는 사람들은 border-crossers (Dombois et al. 2012: 11) > “Lacking established languages and disciplinary frameworks for the multiplicity of possible crossings, it seems that each and every artistic proposition needs to have the capacity to ‘expose’ itself as research in order to create a link to academia.” (Schwab and Borgdorff, 2014, p. 9) > 그러나 대부분의 경우 예술의 학계 진입을 정당화하는 예술과 글쓰기의 이중 구조는 모든 예술이 담론으로 간주된다는 주장이 제기될 수 있기 때문에 단순히 담론성을 요구하는 것은 아닙니다. 위에서 인용한 AHRC의 예에서 '설명', '지지', '실증'과 같은 단어가 사용된 것은 이러한 용어가 모두 자신의 예술적 명제를 연구로 옹호해야 한다는 것을 암시합니다.5 따라서 예술은 존재론의 문제, 즉 예술이 연구인가? - 라는 존재론의 문제가 아니라 특정 행위가 연구라는 것을 어떻게 알 수 있는가라는 인식론의 문제입니다. > > However, the double construct of art and writing that in most cases justifies art’s entry into academia does not simply require discursivity, since an argument could be made that all art counts as discourse. This explains the use of words such as ‘explanation’, ‘support’ and ‘demonstration’ in the abovequoted example from the AHRC: all these terms suggest that one must defend one’s artistic proposition as research.5 It is thus not a question of ontology – is art research? – but a question of epistemology – how do we know that a certain practice is research? (11) > “그러나 이러한 근본적인 인식론적 문제는 예술 연구자들이 학문적 글쓰기를 통해 예술적 주장을 전달해야 하는 상황에서 그러한 글쓰기와 예술을 연결하는 신뢰할 수 있는 인식론 없이도 현재 학계의 실용주의에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 생각합니다."라고 말했습니다. > > “However, this fundamental epistemological problem, which we believe handicaps artistic researchers, who are asked to deliver artistic claims through academic writing without reliable epistemologies that connect such writing with their art, seems not to affect the current pragmatics of academia.” (“The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia”, 2014, p. 12) ### A fresh approach > "이 책은 예술('실천')과 글쓰기('이론') 사이에 여전히 지배적인 연구 분포에 의문을 제기하고 보다 신중한 접근을 위한 새로운 토대를 마련하고자 시도합니다. 그 맥락을 설명하기 위해 예술연구저널(JAR), 예술연구학회(SAR), 예술연구목록(ARC) 프로젝트를 중심으로 한 국제적이고 네트워크화된 활동을 강조하는 것이 중요합니다." > > “This book attempts to question the still-dominant distribution of research between art (‘practice’) and writing (‘theory’) and to lay new foundations for a more considered approach. In order to explain its context, it is important to stress the international and networked activities around the Journal for Artistic Research (JAR), the Society for Artistic Research (SAR) and the Artistic Research Catalogue (ARC) project.” (“The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia”, 2014, p. 13) > 19세기부터 시작된 예술에 대한 낭만주의적 정의는 시들어가고 있지만, 예술은 특히 '학문화'라고 불리는 것과 관련하여 '저항'의 개념과 여전히 연결되어 있습니다(Steyerl 2010; Busch 2011 참조). 이러한 입장이 구시대적이며 예술과 학계 사이의 갈등이 줄어들었거나 어떤 형태 또는 '제3의 문화'로 사라졌다고 보기보다는(Snow 1998), 예술 실무자에게 중요한 일련의 가치를 옹호하기 때문에 지속되고 있다고 받아들이는 것이 더 적절해 보입니다. > > Although Romantic definitions of art that stem from the nineteenth century have been withering, art remains connected with notions of ‘resistance’, in particular regarding what has been called its ‘academization’ (Cf. Steyerl 2010; Busch 2011). Rather than suggesting that such positions are outdated and that the conflict between art and academia has either diminished or has disappeared into some form or ‘third culture’ (Snow 1998), it seems more appropriate to accept that they persist because they defend a set of values that is important to practitioners of art. (13) 아래의 글들이 exposition에 관련된 글인데 그 중에서도 as와 관련된 painting 에서 생겨난 질문을 주로 이야기 한다. 분명 art 라고 이야기 하지만 그 중점적 주제는 painting 혹은 painting-ish?의 작업들이 아닐까? > "가능한 다양한 교차점에 대한 확립된 언어와 규율 체계가 부족하기 때문에 모든 예술적 제안이 학계와 연결되기 위해서는 연구로서 자신을 '노출'할 수 있는 역량이 있어야 합니다." (“The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia”, 2014, p. 10) > > The lack of disciplinary frameworks puts some strain on key academic processes, such as peer review, which in their criteria make reference for example, to existing disciplines, fields of study and methods. If, as suggested, art may transgress any criterion for its evaluation, since it transforms the ground on which the evaluation takes place, a practical solution needs to be found that allows for academic evaluation processes and peer-review without fixed points of reference. The fact that academic processes of evaluation are challenged does not, however, signal the fact that artistic research may not fit into broad definitions of research, as employed, for example, by the current Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK, which defines research as 'a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shred'. (14) > 학문적 또는 방법론적 틀에 의해 규율될 수 없는 예술 연구의 본질적인 측면을 설명하기 위해 종종 경험적, 구체적 또는 물질적 차원을 언급합니다(Carter 2004; Pakes 2004 참조). 이와 관련하여 지식의 투명성, 보편성, 객관성과 모순되며 예술과 의미의 근본적인 개방성을 시사하는 위치성, 변형, 차이에 대한 개념이 있습니다. > > In order to explain those essential aspects of artistic research that cannot be governed by disciplinary or methodological frameworks, reference is often made to experiential, embodied or material dimensions (Cf. Carter 2004; Pakes 2004). Linked with these are notions of situatedness, transformation and difference that contradict a possible transparency, universality and objectivity of knowledge and which suggest a fundamental openness of art and meaning. (14) > 그러나 보다 급진적인 이해에서 이러한 개방성은 지식의 기원을 제공하는 '예술', '신체', '물질' 등 모든 고정물에 대한 의문을 포함할 필요가 있는데, 이러한 고정물은 기원으로 새겨진 특정 인식 체계의 결과물일 수 있기 때문입니다. 해체적 접근을 통한 예술 연구에 대한 관점(Schwab 2009; Öberg 2010)은 지식이 어떻게 구성되고 제안되는지에 주의를 기울여야 한다는 생각을 뒷받침하며, 이를 위해서는 '글쓰기 구성 요소'가 실제로 글쓰기의 유일한 장소인지에 대한 의문을 제기해야 한다고 주장합니다. > > However, in a more radical understanding, this openness may need to include the questioning of any fixture, whether it is ‘art’, ‘the body’ or ‘material’ that is meant to provide an origin to knowledge, since those fixtures may be the outcomes of particular epistemic regimes that have inscribed them as origin. A perspective onto artistic research through deconstructive approaches (Schwab 2009; Öberg 2010) supports the idea that attention needs to be paid to how knowledge is constructed and proposed, which in turn requires one to question whether the ‘written component’ in fact represents the sole site of writing. (15) > p15 The distribution of research between art and writing might also be considered from the perspective of Science and Technology Studies, which acknowledge that between the world and our understanding of it transformation take place that constitute both world and understanding. This dynamic condition of research tells us that in our understanding of the world, understanding is already presupposed and at work, and that in our understanding of understanding, world is already presupposed and at work. Latour's notion of 'constructivist realism' (Later 1999: 135) captures this interdependence of world and understanding, which - transposed to art and writing - underscores the idea that in all art practice a from of writing is at work. [[@latour_pandoras_1999]] > p15.  With the notion of 'exposition', we wish to suggest an operator *between* art and writing. Although 'exposition' seems to comply with traditional metaphors of vision and illumination, it should not be taken to suggest the external exposure of practice to the light of rationality; rather, it is meant as the re-doubling of practice in order to artistically move from artistic ideas to epistemic claims. As suggested elsewhere (Schwab 2012b), depending on the practice in which one is actually engaged, constructs such as 'to perform practice as research', 'to stage practice as research', 'to curate practice as research', etc., are all equally suitable. Through such re-doubling, artistic practice is able to install a reflective distance within itself that allows it to be simultaneously the subject and the object of an enquiry. In this way, practice can deliver in one proposition both a thought and its appraisal. - 결국 두개를 하나로 만드는 묶음으로 만든다는 건데 사실 여기서 "as"가 말하는 말을 알기가 어렵다. 물론 specific하지 않게 만드는 것에 의미가 있을 수 있지만 이러한 방향성이 결국이 practice as research 와 같은 모호함을 이야기 하며 적어도 intro에서 만큼은 원하는 바는 뚜렷하나 어떤 결과가 나올지 예상이 불가능 하다는 문제점을 야기한다. 도대체 어떻게 practice를 research로 만들지? research 안으로 그 criteria 안으로 practice 를 끌고 갈 것인가? 아니면 research의 criteria를 확장시켜 practice를 품을 것인가? 그 외에 다른 방법이 있나? 결국 기준점이 research 인 것이고 그 research는 다른 학문들과 공유되는 지점이 있는 상황에서 다른 모든 학문들을 확장시켜야할텐데? > "제안된 두 배로 늘리기의 일환으로 글쓰기에서 기대되는 것이 실제로 실천의 구성 요소로 수행된다면, 추가적인 학술 텍스트의 필요성이 사라질 수도 있고, 더 도발적으로 말하면 하이브리드 텍스트를 생산하는 '학술 글쓰기' 방식 또는 아예 텍스트가 없는 방식에 눈을 뜨게 될 수도 있습니다." > > “If, as part of the suggested re-doubling, what is expected of writing is actually carried out as a component of practice, the need for additional academic texts may vanish, or, more provocatively put, we may open our eyes to modes of ‘academic writing’ that produce hybrid texts, or even no texts at all.” (“The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia”, 2014, p. 17) "'연구로서의 실천의 박람회'를 위한 실행 가능한 모델을 뒷받침하기 위해서는 두 가지 주장에서 승리해야 합니다." 1. “The first is to prove that writing (or ‘theory’) can be exercised in artistic practice that may not produce text.” > Regrading the first argument, it is possible to trace how notions of 'exposition' have emerged from debates around artistic research. Although earlier publications such as Graeme Sullivan's Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts (2005) [[@sullivan_art_2005]] carry the construct 'as research' in their titles, it is in particular Thinking Through Art: Reflections on Art as Research (2006) [[@macleod_thinking_2013]] by Katy Macleod and Lin Holdridge that makes its relevance clear. Two aspects in the book's introduction deserve particular attention. The first is the 'as', or rather the 'counting as', that the authors take from a catalogue essay by Stephen Melville (2001). In it, Melville makes the point that a painting is not simply a painting, but rather, a work that counts as paining, and that, moreover, the counting may be done by the work itself insofar as 'matter thinks' (Melville 2001: 6). > The second aspect is the suggestion made by Macleod and Holdridge that such thinking matter may be related to the writing practice of 'artist scholars', and that 'we need to bring our writing nearer to our making' (Macleod and Eldridge 2006: 12). > "그러나 미리 정의된 구성 요소(예술과 글쓰기)에 대한 연구의 분배에 이의를 제기하려면, 예술은 자기 결정적이라는 위의 첫 번째 가정에 모순되지 않고 명제 전체에 대한 예술적 소유권을 제한하지 않기 위해 이것이 바로 위태로운 문제입니다." > > “However, if the distribution of research across predefined components (art and writing) is to be challenged, this is precisely what is at stake, so as not to contradict the first assumption made above – art is self-determined – and not to limit artistic ownership of the proposition as a whole.” (“The Exposition of Artistic Research: Publishing Art in Academia”, 2014, p. 18) "연구를 식별하는 기준은 분야마다 세부적으로 다르지만, 연구로 무엇을 이해해야 하는지에 대해서는 폭넓은 합의가 이루어지고 있습니다." #### Consideration (22- > In order to consider the publishing of art in academia, emphasis must be placed on the borders, limits or gaps between established identified territories, whether within or outside both art and academia. Thus, rather than looking at those in-between spaces from a secure position,  we propose a constructed. However, while from a centre all borders look alike, at the margins they multiply, become specific and local, making an overview over those border spaces impossible. This, intern, handicaps epistemological and even methodological responses the the question of art and research. (23) 왜 어째서 이 부분을 가지고 secure한 부분이라고 말했는가에 대해서는 의문점이 생길 수 있다. 분명 그 중간 지점이야 말로 가장 위험한 지점이 아닌가? 언제든지 사라질 수 있고 언제든지 줄어들 수 있는 지점인데, 혹시 약간 스위스 같은 중간 지점이라고 생각하는 걸까? We refuse to single out any particular intellectual or artistic framework, but those presented here make space for modes of reflective redoubling and an **exposition** of artistic practice as research that is built from within rather than constructed using external scaffolds and conventions. - 1. Notes on Media Sensitivity in Artistic Research (Mika Elo) [[@elo_notes_2014]] - touch, tact, only with touch -> go as deep as it could. - [[Walter Benjamin|Benjamin]]의 [[Translation]] 컨셉, which is not simply the passage of meaning from one context, language or medium to another, but a reflective relationship between those contexts, languages or media across which meaning is established. (23) - **suggestion** → artistic research through touch has the capacity to approach epistemically that which is specific to a phenomenon, and which may otherwise be missed, and to engage with the limits of knowledge. - 2. Ruth Benschop, Peter Peters and Brita Lemmens → publishing of artistic research - Following [[Bruno Latour]], the object of knowledge may be characterised. - In the exposition, ‘matters of concern’ that engage with extended agency can emerge from those trajectories, allowing for the inclusion of more complex characteristics that may otherwise be seen as external to works of art.’ - 3. Exposition (Rolf Hughes) - **art itself might count as research** - starts from the tension between writing and rhetoric, between critical and creative practice. - refers to the problem of communicating, even identifying, the experiential content of what artistic research aims to address. - 4. 생략 sonification #### Placing [[@slager_counter-archival_2014|Henk Slager (2014) Counter-Archival Dissemination]] ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@schwab_exposition_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```