does not sufﬁce.Normative theory of art cannot consist of explicit
only. It must be ableto accommodate also
of existing meritorious works of art, their details, and theprocedures of creating them, not only as illustrations but as indispensable, integralcomponents of theory.Embryonic theories that aim at these targets exist on a few ﬁelds of design, notably inarchitecture,and nothing prevents creating similar theories on any ﬁeld of art. There would be no need for new,speciﬁc methodology of research because much can be done by simply combining the processes of scientiﬁcnormative researchand artistic creation. Of course, such a marriage requires adjustingboth of these procedures in order to improve the interchange of knowledge and know-how. Somepossible approaches to that effect are discussed below.
Art and Science: Differences and Similarities
Art and science have common historical roots in antiquity, when the Greek term 'tekhne' and Latin'ars' covered several areas of culture which only later were differentiated into arts and sciences, cf.a short account of it under the titleTheory of Design. Even today they have much in common.
We all agree that the goal of scientiﬁc research is to uncover and publish
, informationabout the object of study, which knowledge then other people perhaps can use for solving theirproblems. This target is in principle similar to an important goal in art, as is shown byNovitz(1984), among others. Another similarity is that the knowledge which is presented can be eitherinformative(i.e. accepting the state of things as it is) ornormative(i.e. explaining how you can
change things).As well in sciences as in arts we seek primarily
knowledge that has not been published earlier.Moreover, we consider that the better the presented knowledge is
, the more valuableit is, because more people can then use it.Despite of the common goal of science and art - to present generalizable knowledge - their modesof presenting the intelligence are different.
A work of art
presents information as amodel of a singular case, but the modeof presentation is chosen so that it willbe easy for the public to apply theknowledge to new contexts, for exampleto situations in their personal lives. Oneusual technique for this is that the artistﬁrst "studies" the motif on a moregeneral level and then, when returning to the naturalistic level avoids unnecessary details in thepresentation or makes deliberately the work ambiguous. It remains the task of the public, ﬁrst tointerpret the work of art into a more general level and thereafter to apply the content to theirpersonal use (see ﬁgure on the left). These techniques differ from those used in the sciences, butthe purpose is the same: make the model generalizable.
Artistic Researchhttp://www.uiah.ﬁ/projects/metodi/133.htm3 von 1014.1.2009 7:31 Uhr