Repairing the disembodied mind: art practice, research and new knowledge

Artistic research continues to be the subject of many extended and often somewhat affected debates. With such research having become almost commonplace over the last two decades, there has been no shortage of academics coming forward to assess and analyse artistic research-based practices, and attempt to re-frame and re-theorise art methods and production. Much of the discussion and debate has therefore taken place outside of the contemporary art world and involves specialists often not working in the field of art. Some of the commentary and reflection has come from specialists who are trained artists, or those with a background in the arts but who have moved sideways into other academic disciplines. It is of course generally a good thing that the issue of artistic research receives respect and widespread interest, and that there are voices out there arguing in support of its contribution to knowledge and – perhaps equally as important – to the concept of knowledge itself. However, there are so many ways of being an artist in the western contemporary art world, and ideas about what constitutes art are as numerous and varied as the practices conducted. For artists to take ownership of art-as-research within the hierarchies of academic studies would require research-based art practitioners to contribute more frequently to analytical discourse. There are and have been numerous conferences that allow for the presentation of artistic research projects, but artists have been slow in analysing or publishing their own ideas about why or how they do what they do. This is, to some extent, understandable but also remarkable, given that documentation of artistic research projects abounds, and PhD theses are regularly awarded to artists for their research and artistic production.