As a textile-based artist working in a regional university, I like to conceptualise the broader relationship between academia and industry by using the metaphor of the artist as being the needle and the thread – binding disparate fibres, often creating a tension within the very act of binding them – creating a certain patchwork unique to their/our own vision.
In this metaphorical context I wonder whether the artist could also be the translator, mediator, the trainer across these different contexts of academia and industry? Perhaps the role of the artist is more expansive than what is currently being recognised – and could play more of role agency particularly within the ARC’s assessment and evaluation processes – and perhaps the national evaluation criteria could be more accommodating of this?
On the other side of the spectrum: is there too much responsibility placed on the artist as a conduit of these two contexts in the creative arts peer review process?
And is this too onerous a task – too prescriptive maybe – taking away artists from their primary aims?
These questions propose the difficulty of creative arts assessment and evaluation based on the ‘tension’ between industry and academia because of the different value systems as well as different measures of success – such as commercial viability vs academic merit. Both these landscapes have different aims and functions that form the broader cultural ecology of the creative arts which potentially ‘troubles’ the assessment and evaluation processes.
An integral layer of complexity among these different value systems is the various dimensions of creative arts research itself. This includes experiential facets – lived experience, informed intuitive processes – as integrated knowledges which are a source of richness in the work but are often only implied, not always well represented, translated or documented within creative arts evaluation and assessment.
The ‘tension’ between industry and academia, in addition to having diverse roles within the broader creative arts research ecology of development and contribution, also describes an interconnectedness: they both feed into each other in building notions of success.
We need to approach the very idea of tension not as binary notions of positive/negative outcomes but spectrums of intensities that can heighten, complement and even trigger understandings and successful outcomes.
Afterall, as artists we look for tension and create tension as a means of re-considering ideas of the everyday. As Dawn Mannay would say, ‘making the familiar strange’, which leads to our unique insights constituting experiences and research outcomes. Tension is what gives artwork strength and outcome resolution that respond to the NTRO criteria concerning original contribution and significance, where both academic merit and industry engagement are paramount.
There is another tension which is the tension between research rigour on one hand (innovation and significance) and research relevance on the other.
This brings us to industry contributions and engagement, and Provocation 1: could the contemporary artist be seen as the conduit that brings together different academic and industry contexts as they navigate them in developing and honing their agency? With this being said, the artist is also influenced by the broader socio-cultural ecologies surrounding their practice: we work on various creative projects and attempt to situate them in different contexts, often with competing interests.
Provocation 2: Training is undertaken on the interconnectivity between industry and academia and best practice approaches in this space to help navigate and enhance the broader creative arts ecology. The provision of feedback from such training can enable clarity and give weight to the further development of ARC assessment and evaluation processes within the creative arts. This suggestion moves beyond professional artist within academia to something more holistic, where exchange between the two are offered with an understanding of empowering and expanding the creative arts ecology not just nationally but internationally.
Beata Batorowicz is Associate Professor (Sculpture, Visual Arts) and the Associate Head (Research and Research Training) at the University of Southern Queensland. She is a contemporary artist exhibiting nationally and internationally. Her key touring projects (Dark Rituals (2018-2019)) have secured Australia Council for the Arts funding. Beata has served on the Board of the DDCA since 2022.
Main image: Beata Batorowicz 2020 Dingo (Detail) Fur, Leather, Cotton, dimensions variable. Photo: Jason Castro