Nyrnes also suggests an understanding of art research in spatial terms. As in rhetorical theory, there is already an existing “landscape” connected to the subject or topic discussed, which one has to orientate oneself in. She suggests a model where the artistic researcher is moving between three main places, or sites, in this landscape: The language of the researcher ‒ The language of the material/research object/artistic field ‒ Theory (systematic language) (cf. Nyrnes, 2006, p. 14). The language of the researcher includes the already familiar artistic register. The research object is the material developing into an artistic production. Theory is a systematic language, inherent in the artistic field. Nyrnes argues that one can discuss theory in the arts’ own language:
“Theory is revealed in the principles that can be spotted in the pile of examples at hand. This means that theory has to do with a comparative view rather than induction or deduction”. (Nyrnes, 2006, p. 16)
This partly answers some of my questions. Nyrnes’ model suggests a flexible use of language, and a search for the language and “theory” that lies inherent in the field that the artistic research relates to. This “theory” is what my work is seen in the light of throughout the research process.