Working Papers in Art and Design

Whilst reviewing some of the Working Papers in Art and Design (accessed online http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/index.html) I found a number of very interesting, relevant articles. There were a wide range of issues, concepts and viewpoints discussed and I shall briefly comment on some of these below.

Biggs (2002) discusses the concept of knowledge in art and design, contrasting the more traditional knowing - how with the knowing - that knowledge which comes through, and is evidenced in, arts practice. After outlining the validity and importance of ‘knowing - that’, he goes on to query “what is it that is discovered and advanced through practice that is of benefit to those who experience the outcomes?” and “what aspect of practice enhances knowing-that and how is that communicated through the artefact? (Biggs, 2002, n.p.). As an advocate of the art process and product as legitimate forms of research, I found this an interesting debate - how is this knowledge communicated to the benefit of others? Indeed, does it have to be in order to be valid?

Smith (2004) outlines the key difficulty in the artefact as being the product of research: “The problematic of the visual image is often placed in the possibility of multiple interpretations, the polysemic nature of the image. Indeed the informational matrix that is a "work" could be interpreted in many differing ways.” (n.p.). Biggs (2008) goes on to further illustrate the difficulties when he states that “The creative and performing arts produce "outcomes" that are consumed within a cultural context that changes their value.” (n.p.).

However, is this possibility for multiple interpretations one of the actual benefits to those who experience it? Perhaps knowledge is not so much communicated as constructed through interactive debate around individual interpretations. And perhaps one of the key benefits is not the actual knowledge within the artefact but the social and relational understanding developed though interactions around the artefact. I would like to consider these issues further before coming to a conclusion.

REFERENCES:

Biggs, M.A.R. (2002) Editorial: The Concept of Knowledge in Art and Design. Working Papers in Art and Design 2. [online] Available at: < http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/ > [Accessed 30/4/12].

Biggs, M.A.R. (2008) Editorial: The Problem of Interpretation in Research in the Visual and Performing Arts. Working Papers in Art and Design 5. [online] Available at: <http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol5/mbintro.html> [Accessed 30/4/12].

Smith, C. (2004) Critical objects :the practice of research through making. Working Papers in Art and Design 3. [online] Available at: < http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/ >[Accessed 30/4/12].