dc.description.abstract | During an Artistic Research day at KHiO’s dpt. of design (13.08.21), PhD fellow Ida Falck Øien asked the co-author (Theodor Barth) a direct question on how to incorporate diary-keeping into the practices of arenas devoted to the presentation and discussion of results and reflections from artistic research: for instance, the PhD viva.
Finding that the question was asked by Ida from a place of research practice, and my answer (Theodor Barth) was formulated within the constraints of the mentioned discussion-arena, there was a risk that the question remained substantially unanswered, or tautological, and rather reproduce the problem (if only moving it).
Which is why we took the initiative to let the question have the chance of being processed—and met—in a diary: that is, an experimental diary of exactly one-week duration, and posting it here on KHiODA one week after the question was asked during the gathering above.
Which means that the question was sought to be addressed, as different tasks conspired to (randomly) meet during this week, using them as occasions to process Ida’s question: we did this as a collaborative venture. She sometimes pitched the flyer entries, alternatively responded to them, with images from her own doctoral work.
In this way, we engaged a transaction in knowledge, design and ways of being-in-the world, the led us from criticality to critical theory, and also to some fundamental questions concerning the ethics of glass-plate media. The topics covered by me are representative for the type of exchange that I have at this time of the year (term startup).
The concept of ‘agentic’ used by Christina Lindgren in her exposé of the Costume Agency Project. Then an exchange with composer Henrik Hellstenius on Mette Kaabye’s MA thesis on Georges Aperghis (music theatre): discussing e.g. 3rd party readability and 3rd party stakes (ownership, use-value etc.).
How, the notion of the phygital—physical + digital = phygital—which gave name to the present flyer series. The borderland role of the unconscious in the edgeland between the physical and the digital. Along with the affordances of parcours (itinerancy) to map unto discours (the journey), in terms of evolving situations and shifting positions.
Things that are characteristic of creative processes, featuring design as the animating principle of such processes (in the delimited aspect discussed in the series). How the contingent, speculative and agentic become bundled in what can understand as signs, or sign-production (semiosis). Where specify, rather than generality, is a virtue.
What is the contribution of artistic research to contemporary knowledges? In which aspects are these portable and transportable into other disciplines as archaeology, architecture and anthropology? In other words, what is the AR defence, that can also be brought down to a viva. Bringing STEAM to the controversies from the STEM-subjects.
In the “crack” between environmental humanities and science technology studies (STS) lays buried a question of how we conceive explanation, and explanatory mechanisms. Can we argue that the STEM subjects—environmentally—is in a state of flux, lateral drift and fragmentation? What can artistic research do that philosophy doesn’t?
Whoever is looking for definitive answers to these questions in the present series will find none. But you will find that they are processed in terms that are rich in implications for criteria we may want to discuss, that are critical to what we call a viva in Artistic Research. Essentially, a contribution to an ongoing discussion on the subject matter.
The last flyer in the series attempts to deconstruct the phygital down to its workings, as one that is facilitated by a particular work of illustration, to which my attention was drawn by Prof. Andreas Berg. This flyer therefore crosses over from design thinking to a discussion with methodological implications for visual methods in archive studies. | en_US |