Advanced

Modes of communication in artistic research: on Americanness and Architectural Influence on semiotic grounds

Sandin, Gunnar LU and Ståhl, Lars-Henrik LU (2012) In Culture of communication/Communication of culture p.1089-1100
Abstract
In relation to traditional modes of research within academic context, there is a recent interest in research methods where artistic practices set a larger part of the managerial guidelines, i. e. where the artist or artwork is not the subject of investigation, but rather the operative agent for the carrying through of a project and for the dissemination of results. These methods are by necessity tied to more idiosyncratic and more experimental ways of communicating research. From a «pure» conveying perspective this may seem controversial: Why introduce new interpretative layers into the academically formalized frameworks of communication? However, from an «empirical» art perspective, as well as from the semiotic perspective of the... (More)
In relation to traditional modes of research within academic context, there is a recent interest in research methods where artistic practices set a larger part of the managerial guidelines, i. e. where the artist or artwork is not the subject of investigation, but rather the operative agent for the carrying through of a project and for the dissemination of results. These methods are by necessity tied to more idiosyncratic and more experimental ways of communicating research. From a «pure» conveying perspective this may seem controversial: Why introduce new interpretative layers into the academically formalized frameworks of communication? However, from an «empirical» art perspective, as well as from the semiotic perspective of the pervasive presence of «vagueness» (Peirce), it is understandable that certain qualities in artistic work, as well as in empirical research, might get lost when conventional methods of investigation are setting the norm. When artistic methods – like practice-based investigatory techniques, critical institutional intervention, unforeseen technologies of information processing, and experimental modes of dissemination – are brought into traditional academic modes of investigation, the benefit seems to be of a reciprocal sort: both academia and art world may conquer pre-conceptualization in their respective knowledge traditions. The conventional terminology by which research applications, as well as art projects, are generally described generally include notions like «background», «theory», «method», «relevance», etc, and these are used to reach an understanding from experts as well as from non-expert readers. It is in this paper suggested that such basic concepts could be discussed also in relation to another set of terms, less frequent but relevant for this field: «ground», «wit» and «margin». «Ground» relates to the abstract correspondence between two distinct phenomena, as in iconic and indexical ground (Peirce, Sonessson, a o). «Wit» stands for the conclusive logic mechanism of a humorous or non-humorous creation (Freud, a o). And «Margin» is here thought of as the reduced or neglected surroundings to a thematic context that nevertheless influence the focus of thematic attention (Gurwitsch, a o). An underlying question is to what extent the common terminology is also decisive for the communicational performance of research within creative arts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
in
Culture of communication/Communication of culture
editor
Cantero, Pilar; Veloso, Gonzalo ; Passeri, Alberta; Paz Cago, José; ; ; and
pages
1089 - 1100
publisher
Universidade de Coruña
ISBN
978-84-9749-522-6
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
68ade4a9-dc6f-404d-a341-d026808409d5
alternative location
http://ruc.udc.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/2183/13472/CC-130_art_106.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
date added to LUP
2017-03-15 16:23:12
date last changed
2017-04-06 16:39:05
@inbook{68ade4a9-dc6f-404d-a341-d026808409d5,
  abstract     = { In relation to traditional modes of research within academic context, there is a recent interest in research methods where artistic practices set a larger part of the managerial guidelines, i. e. where the artist or artwork is not the subject of investigation, but rather the operative agent for the carrying through of a project and for the dissemination of results. These methods are by necessity tied to more idiosyncratic and more experimental ways of communicating research. From a «pure» conveying perspective this may seem controversial: Why introduce new interpretative layers into the academically formalized frameworks of communication? However, from an «empirical» art perspective, as well as from the semiotic perspective of the pervasive presence of «vagueness» (Peirce), it is understandable that certain qualities in artistic work, as well as in empirical research, might get lost when conventional methods of investigation are setting the norm. When artistic methods – like practice-based investigatory techniques, critical institutional intervention, unforeseen technologies of information processing, and experimental modes of dissemination – are brought into traditional academic modes of investigation, the benefit seems to be of a reciprocal sort: both academia and art world may conquer pre-conceptualization in their respective knowledge traditions. The conventional terminology by which research applications, as well as art projects, are generally described generally include notions like «background», «theory», «method», «relevance», etc, and these are used to reach an understanding from experts as well as from non-expert readers. It is in this paper suggested that such basic concepts could be discussed also in relation to another set of terms, less frequent but relevant for this field: «ground», «wit» and «margin». «Ground» relates to the abstract correspondence between two distinct phenomena, as in iconic and indexical ground (Peirce, Sonessson, a o). «Wit» stands for the conclusive logic mechanism of a humorous or non-humorous creation (Freud, a o). And «Margin» is here thought of as the reduced or neglected surroundings to a thematic context that nevertheless influence the focus of thematic attention (Gurwitsch, a o). An underlying question is to what extent the common terminology is also decisive for the communicational performance of research within creative arts.},
  author       = {Sandin, Gunnar and Ståhl, Lars-Henrik},
  editor       = {Cantero, Pilar and Veloso, Gonzalo  and Passeri, Alberta and Paz Cago, José},
  isbn         = {978-84-9749-522-6},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {1089--1100},
  publisher    = {Universidade de Coruña},
  series       = {Culture of communication/Communication of culture},
  title        = {Modes of communication in artistic research: on Americanness and Architectural Influence on semiotic grounds},
  year         = {2012},
}