Today we read a article by Brown and Sorensen called “Integrating Creative Practice and Research in the Digital Media Arts.” This is my response.
In my later years I tend to avoid this type of meta discussion of artistic practice at all costs. In general, I personally fall into inaction when staring down these existential paths. Still, it’s healthy and necessary every once in a while.
I fell like much of the article was just stating intuitive observations: artist-researchers use intuition combined with experience and observed knowledge of the larger field in order to move ahead. This ends up getting judged in terms of popularity, lasting influence and future use, etc. I find this totally true and not very interesting or revelatory.
On the other hand, this was compact and profound: “The production and dissemination of theory is a distinguishing differentiation between our practice-led research and conventional artistic practice.” I really appreciate the idea of turning individual knowledge into public information through proper dissemination. This also demonstrates what separates artistic research from other fields- there are different types of artifacts and products that we can create as artists- performances, exhibitions, etc.- as well as theories, articles, and algorithms such as in other branches of academia.
This makes me want to better document and distribute my own work, as well as to take more risks in describing “theories” I derive through the creative process. It also makes me want to be better aware of my academic surroundings/past, because they basically define the distinction between artists-researchers and traditional artists in this way and it makes sense. Still, I’d always like to produce and let the work speak loudest for itself, and like I said before, sometimes too much self-awareness can lead to stagnation and the inability to take risks.