1.3.1 Artistic research and the practice


I am operating in a field where embodied, intuitive knowledge has top priority, and where the word “intellectualisation” is often used as a description for something that can be disturbing rather than fruitful to the artistic process. (This seems to be a parallel to the term ‘academisation’, used in Borgodoff : The Debate on Research in the Arts, 2006,  p. 8. [1]) This situation – which is probably recognisable to many artistic researchers ‒ has made me worried. Transparency through critical discourse is an ideal and a keyword in academic research, especially in the Humanities. In my field of practitioners, the verbal discourse in academic terms and language is ‒ very often ‒ not recognised as being transparent, but rather as a closed field for specialists. So I ask: Can the critical reflection in my research, in its form, become valid and transparent for this field of practitioners? And what is – in my project ‒ theory, recognised as the valid discourse that can make my artistic work open for reflection?

Next page  ➡

[1] Borgodoff: The Debate on Research in the Arts, Bergen National Academy of the Arts, Bergen 2006)

Scroll to top