Hunter (2009) - Theory/Practice as Research: Explorations, Questions and Suggestions
From Inventiopedia
Hunter, Lynette "Theory/Practice as Research: Explorations, Questions and Suggestions"(p.230-236), in Riley, Shannon Rose, and Lynette Hunter, eds. 2009. Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies. 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
I find this article interesting primarily for its weaknesses. In short, in my opinion it dodges the tough questions about the relationship between art and research.
Hunter states:
"I argue: Art that searches and constitutes things through the process of articulating is research. This, by the way, is also a good definition for science."
First of all, the latter claim is easy to disagree with - this is a quite vague description, and not a particularly good definition of anything. But that kind of disregard for the literal meanings of words is something the author shares with de Certeau and others, so I'd forgive her if she could eventually bring the vagueness somewhere clarifying. I don't think she does.
Hunter explains that she has "developed performance art into a medium for exploring theory". Her key idea seems to be that "any theory is always on the edge of articulation because it's trying to talk about things that haven't been said before", which is similar to the idea of art, which according to Hunter is "what happens before articulation, the attempts at saying what hasn't been 'said' before". Yes, I agree - that is a parallel between the two fields, and an interesting observation as such. But the observation of a parallel or an analogy is not the same as identity!
Hunter goes on to speak about different kinds of the "not-said" and how her performance art has explored these issues. But she does not speak about the very fundamental difference between art and research deals with these issues. Research is about contributing to knowledge-building. In order for that to happen, research questions, methods and results must be verbalized and made explicit in such a manner that they can be communicated to others and comprehended as clearly as possible, so that the others can evaluate the work and critique it, and use it to augment their own work. In other words, while art can be a subjective and mystic practice and often avoids making explicit its own basic asumptions and premises, research needs to be fundamentally intersubjective and open to evaluation and critique.
It is interesting in this light to see how Hunter in her conclusion writes that her artistic practice "has contributed to my theoretical understanding and engagement with research being done in the field" (emphasis mine). Great, so your art practice has done you good. That doesn't make it research, though.
