NiTRO Creative Matters

Perspectives on creative arts in higher education

Artistic Research Within the Academy and Beyond

By Professor Estelle Barrett and Professor Barbara Bolt — At a roundtable at the Australian Council of University Art Schools (ACUADS) annual conference in 2014, panelists were asked to address the following question: What impact are higher degree research programs having on emerging trends and themes in contemporary art? Whilst the panel felt that the development of higher degree research programs in creative arts did not lead to better “art” they did agree that it has profoundly affected the way art is framed and understood both within the academy and beyond.

Two years later, in the wake of the Watt Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrangements and the ACOLA Review of Australia’s Research Training System with their changes to Research Block Grant funding allocations to Universities, strategic and financial questions related to these are in danger of overwhelming the fundamental question facing creative arts or artistic research: What is the relationship between the academy’s research agenda, artistic research and contemporary art? As we move beyond two decades since the emergence of artistic research in the academy it seems appropriate to take stock of our positioning in relation to this question.

In 2015, the University of the Arts Helsinki in co-operation with the European Artistic Research Network (EARN) curated a research pavilion at the 56th Venice Biennale. Working within the theme ‘experimentality’, the curators, Jan Kaila and Henk Slager, aimed to articulate the dynamic between “artistic research” and “contemporary art.” The idea that we may need to articulate this dynamism may appear a contradiction in terms and yet, the fact that this was the first time artistic research had made an appearance at an international biennale, tells us that these are actually two different, if related endeavours—artistic research that seeks its legitimacy within the academy and contemporary art that finds legitimacy in the art world as it has continued to operate outside the academy. Kaila and Slager’s project is indication of a growing movement in the European context towards bridging this ‘divide’.

In Europe, particularly in the Scandinavian countries and northern Europe, the discipline of artistic research is now structurally well established within the Academy as evidenced by the establishment of Institutes of Artistic Research, professorships in artistic research, dedicated conferences and funding models that provide support for artistic research. However, in Australia, despite its early leadership in the development of higher degree research (HDR) training in the creative arts, artistic research remains caught between the skepticism of the broader research community which still questions whether art can be research (and this includes many artists working in the academy, albeit newly anointed as artistic researchers), and also a continuing skepticism concerning the value of artistic research as a paradigm from elsewhere, within the academy, where funding allocations privilege science and technology areas in terms of capital allocation, grants and HDR scholarships.

Hence, within the academy, artistic research has to prove its credentials where criteria of value are still skewed in favour of traditional academic disciplines, whilst beyond the academy, the real prize for the artist is not research grants, but success as a contemporary artist in the world of art business where valorization through art criticism and the gallery stable system still determine criteria of value.

Despite this skepticism, artistic research has insinuated itself into the world of art, through graduates of HDR programs, and into the academy through sheer persistence that has also seen the development of interdisciplinary research programs partnering with art departments and schools.  The inclusion of the creative arts in the Australian research assessment exercise (ERA) has also been a key factor in profiling artistic outputs and articulating how art functions as research, using both scholarly criteria and esteem measures tied to gallery exhibition which has come to be acknowledged as a mode of peer review.

The production of art remains a vital and necessary indication of the health of the creative arts as a discipline. However, burgeoning scholarly publications emerging around artistic research demonstrate the impact and reach of this developing research endeavor. These include: a considerable number of monographs and edited books, the emergence of refereed journals (Leonardo, DAS Platforms/Contemporary Art, Studio Research, Studies in Material Thinking) and media rich digital platforms (Journal of Artistic Research, Unlikely Journal for Creative Arts, Project Anywhere.)  This discursive explosion has been enhanced by the proliferation of interdisciplinary research centres and institutes that bring the creative arts into dialogue with other disciplines, for example, SymbioticA, the Centre for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), the National Institute of Experimental Arts (NIEA), Synapse Art/Science Collaboration, Science Gallery International (SGI), Motion.Lab and Digital Ethnography Research Centre (DERC) to name a few. Finally we have seen the growth in arts based health research, for example the National Music Therapy Research Unit (NaMTRU) and the Creative Arts Therapy Unit (CATRU).  Such collaborations between art and other sectors of the academy highlight what art can do in terms of research with other disciplines.

While the sector has worked hard to establish artistic research as a research field within the academy, there still remains much to be done in terms of articulating whether artistic research (for better or worse) has shifted institutional, professional and public perceptions of the role of art in contemporary society. Contemplating the need for broad-based research into the impact of artistic research within the context of post Watt funding arrangements is a sobering fact.

Estelle Barrett is Professor and HDR Coordinator at the Institute of Koorie Education, Deakin University. Barbara Bolt is Professor in Contemporary Arts and Culture and ADR at the VCA and MCM, University of Melbourne. Together they have co-edited three books: Material Inventions: Applying Creative Research (2014), Carnal Knowledge: Towards a “New Materialism” Through the Arts (2012) and Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry (2007; reprinted 2010).

More from this issue

More from this issue

By Su Baker, President, Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Creative Arts — Over 2 decades the creative art academic community has grown and matured as a sector -  so have the questions of method and purpose of publically funded research, that influence the processes of evaluation. Discussions around impact and ‘end-user’ value is a live issue at the ARC and we look forward to the new thinking that will shortly emerge. The creative arts depend almost entirely on end-user experience, and the impact of these experiences aspire to have real and meaningful impact on peoples lives.
By Dr Jenny Wilson. DDCA’s Research officer Jenny Wilson caught up with Henk Borgdorff in Amsterdam in April 2016,  hot on the heels of his recent speaking tour of European and UK universities, art and music schools, to find out more about artistic research and European experiences of the politics of art and higher education.
By Professor Graeme Sullivan Visual arts has no singular function because it can be called on to do just about anything. Arts’ usefulness is because it is edgeless and homeless—art is masterful at shape shifting and form fitting
By Professor Jeri Kroll Since the Strand report (1998), scholars have been unpacking the manifold ways in which creative works can be research. Explaining the usefulness of questions to doctoral candidates not only keeps supervisors honest, but also keeps at the forefront of everyone’s mind why theory is unavoidable.
By Professor Paul Draper and Professor Scott Harrison Communities of profession, the old academy and the new academy, intimately rub up against each other and while some research may still be considered ‘more equal’ than others for now – this evolving mix can only positively impact on the rise of artistic research, its acceptance in society and its measurement by governments and universities.
By Associate Professor Cheryl Stock AM — The narrative of knowledge is almost always underpinned by the cognitive but how we know the world is often through the experiential. Whilst we have moved a long way in redefining knowledge in research terms to include the processes and outcomes of our practices (artistic, creative, professional) and importantly have privileged the artist’s voice as the expert in this recasting of what a knowledge claim might look like, some art forms prove more problematic than others in this endeavour.
By Dr Danny Butt — During the 1990s and 2000s, as readers of NiTRO know well, an intensive debate took place among art and design academics as to whether their practices and those of their graduate students could be called research, and if so what “contribution to knowledge” might be made by the creative output, as distinct from the writing that has traditionally accompanied submissions in higher degrees in creative arts.
By Professor Margaret Sheil — On my last outing in an ACUADS conference,  I was described by Flinders University’s Julian Meryick as the “artist’s ideal of a scientist… impatient with the reduction of everything down to short term utility.” So as I venture once again into the creative arts domain,  I draw on a scientific analogy. The principle of chemical equilibrium refers to a system in which the rate of consumption of inputs is the same as that at which outputs are produced so that the system is in a stable state of consumption and production.
By Professor Ross Woodrow — The decision by the Australia Research Council (ARC) to achieve the long-mooted merging of the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) and the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercise by adeptly disappearing the HERDC has been welcomed by many discipline leaders, and not just those in the creative arts. With the inclusive ERA becoming the singular evaluation of research quality across Australia, there couldn’t be a better time to rethink the classification of research in universities.
By Associate Professor Robert Burke and Dr. Andrys Onsman — Criticism of the scientific methods of doing research has increasingly pointed out that all experimental research involves some sort of creative leap. In the performing arts such creative leaps are fundamental to artistry.
By Dr Jenny Wilson As many in creative arts grappled with the amalgamation challenges of the 90s, few were aware that the Dawkins reforms also had increased the centrality of research to university funding. This ‘blissful ignorance’ was not to last.
By Dr Leo Berkeley — The creative practice of filmmaking, understood as a form of academic research, has been growing in scale and significance within Australian universities for several years.  While doctorates involving the making of a film have been occurring for decades, it is only relatively recently that the academic screen production community has been seeking to more systematically establish how the production of a film can lead to the discovery of new knowledge.  
By Professor Brad Buckley and Associate Professor John Conomos — Recently, there has been much discussion in the press and beyond about the importance of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) subjects at high school and at university. In particular, the Commonwealth Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda has focused exclusively on STEM disciplines. However, that discussion misses the central importance of creativity, inventiveness and innovation.
By Dr Kate Tregloan and Professor Kit Wise — Interdisciplinarity has been widely recognised as a valuable response to the wicked problems of our time. The ability to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries brings together different perspectives and expertise, and allows entirely new approaches and solutions to emerge. To prepare students and graduates for the complex challenges of the twenty first century we need good quality interdisciplinary programs. But how do we know what is ‘good’?