Subscribe to DeepL Pro to translate larger documents.
Visit www.DeepL.com/pro for more information.
Auditory perspectives
Julian Klein
What is artistic research?
Sorry, the question is wrong, Good man (1978). We
should ask: When is research artistic? - But let's start
from the back.
Research
According to the UNESCO definition, research is "any
creative systematic activity undertaken for the purpose
of advancing the stock of knowledge, including the
knowledge of mankind, culture and society, and the
use of this stock of knowledge in the development of
new applications" (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms
2008).
Research therefore means not knowing, or better:
not yet knowing and wanting to know (Rheinberger
1992, Dombois 2006). Moreover, research does not
seem to be a unique feature of scientists, but also
encompasses many activities that have
undertaken by artists, for example. That most of them
were creative and quite a few liked to proceed
systematically is undisputed. The motivation
increase knowledge, on the other hand,
sometimes been granted to them less as a matter of
course, even if they need knowledge to carry out their
activities and to reflect on their self-image, which they
must have acquired somehow and thus
researched for - and this not only now, but from the
very beginning.
For many reasons, as Baecker (2009)
explained in com- pact, resentment against junctions
of research and art only really begins with their
capitalisation: that artists "do research" seems to be
even more easily compatible with a scientistic
worldview than that there must consequently be
products of their work that count as "research".
Lesage also suspects that concerns about limiting
access to resources lie behind this rejection and titled
his essay (2009) "Who's afraid of artistic research?
Before quoting McAllister (2004) as a penultimate
argument in a potential argument ("I
2/2011 - 1
think, artistic research exists"), a few points can often
be salvaged by offering a categorical distinction, such
as a threefold one, as by Jones (1980), Frayling
(1993) and Borgdorff (2009): into art that is based on
(other) research, then into art that uses research (or its
methods) for itself, and into art whose products are
research. Dombois (2009) extends this trichotomy by
the chiastic complements: "research about/for/through
art | art about/for/through research".
Research in the natural sciences alone is very
diverse in its subjects, methods and products, as
McAllister (2004) also notes. How much more does
this apply to research in the humanities and social
sciences, as well as to industrial, market and opinion
research. And it also applies to artistic research.
Among the authors cited here, there is agreement that
been this diversity must be preserved against efforts to
narrow it down canonically.
Art without research is just as devoid of its essential
to foundation as is science. As cultural achievements,
has both live from the balance of tradition and innovation.
Tradition without research would be blind adoption,
and innovation without research would be pure
intuition. Wherever scientists do not conduct research,
also but teach, apply, advise, judge, treat, apply for, or
even more or less telegenically entertain (hence
"PUSH": the button), they are indeed doing science -
has but if they did all this without research, they would not
be fully in their business. The same can be said of
artists. On the other hand, it becomes clear that not
everything that is considered art is research, just as
little as this is the case for science.
The most important diagnosis, however, is that
"research" in the singular does not exist any more than
"science" or "art" - these are collective plurals that
have very different antecedents.
Julian Klein What is artistic research?
The latter are not infrequently more closely related to
each other across categories such as disciplines than
to some other members of their faculty and are then
much easier to bring together under common
umbrellas such as themes, methods or paradigms in
an interdisciplinary way. In such a drive
singularisation lies probably the strongest root of a
supposed but persistent opposition between art and
science: Baecker (2009) calls this the "ordering
principle of functional difference", the emergence of
which Mersch & Ott (2007) trace back to the 19th
century.
Art and science are not separate domains, but
rather two dimensions in a common cultural space.
This means that something can be more or less artistic
without saying anything about the share of the
scientific. This also applies to many other cultural
attributes, such as the musical, philosophical, religious
or mathematical. On the contrary, some of them are
even more interdependent than isolated. In this
respect, Latour's diagnosis applies here too, mutatis
mutandis: "There are not two departments, but a
single one, the products of which differ only later and
after joint examination" (1991, p. 190). At the very
least, however, not everything that is considered art
must therefore be ignorant, and not everything that is
considered science must be inartistic. Dombois
proposes five criteria for a "science as art" (2006). An
abundance of examples, for which there is no space
here, shows that the artistic and scientific content of
objects, processes and events can be mixed
independently of each other and in ever different
doses. Research does not become artistic when, or
only when, it is carried out by artists (as helpful as
their participation often is), but lends its name,
wherever, whenever and by whomever it may be
undertaken, to its specific quality: the mode of artistic
experience.
Artistic experience
In the mode of aesthetic experience, perception
becomes present to itself, opaque and palpable.
Artistic experience can be defined analogously as the
mode of felt interfering framings (for more details see
Klein 2009). Accordingly, a
arttexts.com 2/2011 - 2
artistic experience of looking at oneself from outside a
frame and at the same time entering into it. Framings
that cross our perception in this way are also present
and tangible (Fischer-Lichte 2004 calls this the "liminal
state"). The artistic experience as well as the aesthetic
for experience are modes of our perception and as such
constantly available, even outside of art works and art
places.
Moreover, the subjective perspective is
constitutively contained in "experiencing", because
experiences cannot be delegated by nature and can
only be negotiated intersubjectively in a second order.
This is an essential reason for the view of the singular
character of artistic knowledge (Mersch & Ott 2007,
Nevanlinna 2004, McAllister 2004, Busch 2007, Bip-
pus 2010. Dombois 2006 refers to Barthes' proposal of
a "mathesis singularis" from 1980). It is particularly
true for artistic experiences that they cannot be
separated from the underlying experiences. Artistic
experience is an active, constructive and aesthetic
process in which mode and substance are inseparably
fused. This distinguishes artistic experience from other
tacit knowledge, which can usually be thought of and
described separately from its acquisition (cf. Dewey
1934, Polanyi 1966, Piccini & Kershaw 2003).
Artistic research
But if "art" is a mode of perception, "artistic research"
must also be the mode of a process. This is why there
can be no categorical difference between "scientific"
and "artistic" research - because the attributes
modulate, independently of each other, a common
carrier, namely the striving for knowledge of research.
Artistic research can therefore always also be
scientific research (Ladd 1979). For this reason, many
artistic research projects are interdisciplinary, or more
precisely: indisciplinary (Rancière in Birrell 2008, Klein
& Kolesch 2009).
Against this background, the expression
"Art as research" as not quite accurate, because it is
not art that mutates into research. What does exist,
however, is research that becomes artistic - hence
Julian Klein What is artistic research?
it should rather be called "Research as Art", with the
central question: When is research art?
In the course of research, artistic experience can
occur at different times, last for different lengths of
time and be of varying importance. This makes it
difficult to categorise the subject matter, but on the
other hand it allows for a dynamic taxonomy: at which
times, in which phases can research be artistic? First
of all in the methods (such as research, archive,
survey, interpretation, modelling, experiment,
intervention, petition); but also in the motivation,
inspiration, reflection, discussion, formulation
research questions, conception and composition,
implementation, publication, evaluation, manner of
discourse - just to begin such a list here. These
phases can only be summarised and categorised
posthoc, for example in the usual threefold order of
object, method and product. However, this order is
important in order not to fall into a normative restriction
to a system-conforming canon in the discussion about
artistic research (Lesage 2009).
On what level does the reflection of artistic research
take place? As a rule, at the level of the artistic
experience itself. This does not exclude (subjective or
intersubjective) interpretation on a descriptive level,
nor theoretical analysis or modelling on a meta-level.
But: "It is a myth that reflection is only possible from
the outside". (Arteaga 2010). Artistic experience is a
form of reflection.
Artistic knowledge
Who are we? How do we want to live? What do things
mean? What is real? What can we know? When does
something exist? What is time? What is guilt? What is
intelligence? Where is meaning? Could it also be
something else? - These are examples of common
artistic and scientific interest in knowledge. The
processing of these does not always lead to
universally valid knowledge (actually, in view of the
history of science, in very few cases, isn't it?). The arts
are granted the competence to formulate such basic
and at the same time complex questions in their own
specific ways.
arttexts.com 2/2011 - 3
and investigate, which need not be less reflective than
those of philosophy or physics and which are capable
of providing a gain in knowledge that cannot be
experienced in any other way.
Whether artistic thirst for knowledge is acceptable
as a justification for calling an investigation research
obviously depends on what kind of knowledge falls
under the concept of knowledge, or what kinds of
knowledge are considered knowledge. Even if we
could agree that knowledge is "true justified
conviction", not everything would be won with that,
of because there would still be the understanding of
when an opinion becomes a conviction and what
exactly can be a justification for it - apart from truth.
This path leads, however we take it, to ultimate
justifications that appear acceptable or not in each
case (cf. Eisner 2008). For ultimately meta-linguistic
concepts such as knowledge, the more we try to
define them, the more we are forced to make
normative decisions that are essentially based only on
what we want them to mean. Then it is equally
operable whether knowledge, as a third species, also
contains experience alongside cognition and skill, or
whether knowledge and experience in turn stand next
to each other as forms of cognition - they should be
considered equivalent.
Some demand that artistic knowledge must, in spite
of everything, be verbalisable and thus comparable to
declarative knowledge (e.g. Jones 1980, AHRB 2004).
Many say that it is embodied in the products of art
(e.g. Langer 1957, McAllister 2004, Dombois 2006,
Lesage 2009, Bippus 2010). But ultimately it must be
acquired through sensual and emotional perception,
precisely through artistic experience, from which it
cannot be separated. Be it silent or verbal, declarative
or procedural, implicit or explicit - in any case, artistic
knowledge is sensual and bodily, "embodied
knowledge". The knowledge that artistic research
strives for is a felt knowledge.
Julian Klein What is artistic research? arttexts.com 2/2011 - 4

J. Klein: "Zur Dynamik bewegter Körper. The Foundations of

First publication Aesthetic Relativity", in: ders. (ed.): per.SPICE! - Reality and Relativity
of the Aesthetic. Berlin 2009, pp. 104-134.
J. Klein and D. Kolesch: "Galileis Kugel oder das absolut Relative des
This text was first published in: Stock, Gün- ter (ed.): ä s t h e t i s c h e n E r l e b n i s s e s ", in: Klein 2009, pp. 7-18.
J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole: Handbook of the arts in qualitative re-
Gegenworte 23, Wissenschaft trifft Kunst, Berlin- search: perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Thou-
sand Oaks/London 2008.
Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaf- ten: G. W. Ladd: "Artistic Research Tools for Scientific Minds", in: Americ-
an Journal of Agricultural Economics 61/1 (1979), pp. 1-11.
Akademie Verlag 2010, pp. 25-28. Reprinted with kind
S. K. Langer: Problems of art: Ten Philosophical Lectures. New York
permission. 1957.
B. Latour: Wir sind nie modernes [Nous n'avons jamais été modernes.
Paris 1991]. Frankfurt am Main 2008.
P. Leavy: Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. New
York 2009.
Bibliography D. Lesage: "Who's Afraid of Artistic Research?", in: Art & Research
2/2 (2009), S. 1-10.
D. Lesage and K. Busch (eds.): A Portrait of the Artist as a
A. Arteaga: "Artistic Research. Aesthetic Practice as Sense-Making". Researcher. Antwerp 2007.
Lecture, Ernst Schering Foundation Berlin, 8 June 2010 [Unpublished
manuscript]. J. McAllister: "Seven Claims", in: Balkema/Slager 2004, pp. 18-22.
Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB): "Research in the creat- S. McNiff: Art-Based Research. London 1998.
i v e and performing arts", in: Journal of Visual Art Practice 3/1 D. Mersch and M. Ott (eds.): Kunst und Wissenschaft. Munich 2007.
(2004), A. Pakes: "Art as action or art as object? The embodiment of know-
S. 75-78. ledge in practice as research", in: Working Papers in Art and Design
D. Baecker: "Kunstformate" (Cultural Research), in: Rey/Schöbi 2009, 3 (2004). Internet publication ISSN 1466-4917,
pp. 79-97. http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol3/ap-
A. W. Balkema and H. Slager (eds.): Artistic Research. Lier en Boog, full.html.
Series of Philosophy of Art and Art Theory 18. Amsterdam 2004. A. Piccini and B. Kershaw: "Practice as Research in Performance:
E. Barrett and B. Bolt: Practice as Research. Approaches to Creative from epistemology to evaluation", in: Journal of Media Practice 4/2,
Arts Enquiry. London 2009. pp. 113-123.
R. Barthes: Die helle Kammer [La chambre claire. Paris 1980]. Frank- M. Polanyi: Implicit Knowledge [The Tacit Dimension, 1966]. Frankfurt
furt am Main 1989. am Main 1985.
E. Bippus (ed.): Kunst des Forschens. The Practice of Aesthetic J. Rancière: Die Aufteilung des Sinnlichen [Le partage du sensible.
T h i n k i n g . Zurich 2009. Paris 2000]. Berlin 2006.
E. Bippus: "Die epistemische Praxis künstlerischer Forschung", in: A. Rey and St. Schöbi (eds.): Künstlerische Forschung - Positionen
Counterwords 23 (2010) und Perspektiven. Zurich 2009.
R. Birell: "Jacques Rancière and The (Re)Distribution of the H.-J. Rheinberger: Experiment - Difference - Writing: On the History
Sensible: Five Lessons in Artistic Research", in: Art & Research 2/1 of Epistemic Things. Marburg 1992.
(2008), pp. 1-11. H. Smith and R. T. Dean: (eds.): Practice-led Research, Research-
H. Borgdorff: "The debate on research in the arts", in: Dutch Journal of led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh 2009.
Music Theory 12/1 (2007) pp. 1-17; [German:] "Die Debatte über D. Strand: Research in the Creative Arts. Canberra 1998.
Forschung in der Kunst", in: Rey/Schöbi 2009, pp. 23-51. G. Sullivan: Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts.
K. Busch: "Artistic Research and the Poetics of Knowledge", in: Lesa- Thousand Oaks/London 2010.
ge/Busch 2007, p. 41. P. Thomson: "Practice as Research", in: Studies in Theatre and
C. Caduff, F. Siegenthaler, T. Wälchli (eds.): Art and artistic Performance 22/3 (2003), pp. 159-180.
research / Kunst und künstlerische Forschung. Zürcher Jahrbuch
der Künste 6, Zurich: Scheidegger & Spiess, 2010.
D. Carr: "Art, Practical Knowledge and Aesthetic Objectivity", in: Ratio
12/3 (1999), S. 240-256.
J. Dewey: Kunst als Erfahrung [Art as Experience 1934]. Frankfurt am
Main 1980.
F. Dombois: "0-1-1-2-3-5-8-. Zur Forschung an der Hochschule der
Künste Bern", in: Bern University of the Arts (ed.): Research. Jahr-
buch Nr. 4/2009. Bern 2009, pp. 11-22.
F. Dombois: "Art as Research. Ein Versuch, sich selbst eine Anlei-
tung entwerfen", in: Hochschule der Künste Bern (ed.): Hochschu- le
der Künste Bern 2006. Bern 2006, pp. 21-29.
E. W. Eisner: "On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic
Approaches to Qualitative Research", in: Educational Researcher
10/4 (1981), pp. 5-9.
E. W. Eisner: "Art and Knowledge", in: Knowles/Cole 2008, pp. 3-12.
D. Everitt and A. Robertson: "Emergence and complexity: Some ob-
servations and reflections on transdisciplinary research involving per-
formative contexts and new media", in: International Journal of Per-
formance Arts and Digital Media 3/2 (2007), pp. 239-252.
E. Fischer-Lichte: Aesthetics of the Performative. Frankfurt am Main
2004.
Chr. Frayling: "Research in Art and Design", in: Royal College of Art
Research Papers 1.1. (1993), pp. 1-5.
N. Goodman: "When is Art?", in: ders.: Ways of Creating the World
[Ways of Worldmaking 1978] Frankfurt am Main 1990, pp. 83-85.
M. Hannula, J. Suornta and T. Vadén (eds.): Artistic Research.
Helsinki 2005.
T. Jones: "A Discussion Paper on Research in the Visual Fine Arts", in:
Leonardo 13/2 (1980), pp. 89-93.
J. Kaila and A. Herlin: The Artist's Knowledge 2. Helsinki 2008.
S. Kiljunen and M. Hannula (eds.): Artistic Research. Helsinki 2002.
Julian Klein What is artistic research? arttexts.com 2/2011 - 5

Summary

Art and science are often seen as opposites, although

they share many similarities. Among them is the
interest in gaining and increasing knowledge.
Nevertheless, the concept of artistic research is often
met with misunderstanding or incomprehension. Yet it
is not art that mutates into research by asking
questions and striving for knowledge, but rather
research that can become artistic if it is fed by artistic
experience. The knowledge that can be gained
through this is sensual and physical, and in this sense
a tangible and felt knowledge.

Author

Julian Klein, composer and director, director of the

Institute for Artistic Research (Berlin), member and
artistic director of the group a rose is, teaches
directing at the Berlin University of the Arts as well as
performance and project development at the Frankfurt
University of Music and Performing Arts, is currently a
guest researcher at the Institute for Behavioural and
Neurobiology at the Free University / Cluster of
Excellence "Languages of Emotions". From 2003 to
2008 Julian Klein was a member of the Young
Academy at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of
Sciences and Humanities and the German Academy
of Sciences Leopoldina. He studied composition and
mathematics and was an assistant director and stage
com- poser at the Staatstheater Hannover under the
directorship of Ulrich Khuon until 1998.

Title

Julian Klein, What is Artistic Research, in:

kunsttexte.de/Auditive Perspectives,
No. 2, 2011 (5 pages), www.kunsttexte.de.