nonsite

Back in October I was in Toronto at York University and I heard Bruce Brown, Pro VP Research at University of Brighton speak about research in the fine arts. I wrote a post outlining his ideas about what is good research?

I am still struck by this dilemma: does good research make for good art?

Obviously there are some big assumptions here- but what I’m wrestling with is the reality that most of the work that is done by artists that I admire does not come of of a “fine arts research” model. In fact just the opposite- I’ve seen and heard about a great deal of work that has been heavily supported by research funds, ends up producing work that is: a) illustrative of a “research topic” or b) visually uninteresting or c) lame.

What I’m trying to make sense of is how do the ideas that I am researching fit into the methodologies of a research paradigm and the artistic creation model that I understand and have worked with for thirty years. I feel like I am trying to tweak and distort my ideas to fit into this research model and I’m not sure how exactly to critique it from within. I think I’ve been a bit stuck by this dilemma.

Falling out from this, would be the further question: does good reflective writing lead to better work. I would say yes, given the initial idea is interesting in the first place!