POSTRESEARCH!

Q4 Arts and Humanities Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.37522/aaav.109.2023.167
Christiane Kues
{"title":"POSTRESEARCH!","authors":"Christiane Kues","doi":"10.37522/aaav.109.2023.167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article addresses the situation of research in art institutions and its contradictions. Can postresearch become a critical impulse for artistic research? The proposition of “postresearch” was first introduced in the European context of artistic research when the 9th Bucharest Biennale, “Farewell to Research”, curated by Henk Slager in 2020 was announced. The philosopher Peter Osborne consequently analyzed the concept of postresearch and its self-contradictory claim of wanting to leave the research paradigm.1 He emphasized that artistic research must fulfil a non-administrative function, as does the “concept of art” by neglecting or revising its form. In comparison, higher education standards and academic legitimation processes of artistic research follow stricter standardization rules (e.g., written supplements). If artistic research neither competes with the “concept of art” (whatever that is?) nor acts as a legitimate science or discipline and furthermore does not escape administration, should these practices reclaim their status as art? Within the unresolved question of how to position artistic research between art and science – or more specifically in the humanities – lies also its attraction, its character or junction for crossing disciplines and critical studies. Artistic research has what the theorist Natalie Loveless called a polydisciplinamorious character which can lead future debates from methodo- logical introspection to collaborate in postresearch practices.","PeriodicalId":36620,"journal":{"name":"Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37522/aaav.109.2023.167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article addresses the situation of research in art institutions and its contradictions. Can postresearch become a critical impulse for artistic research? The proposition of “postresearch” was first introduced in the European context of artistic research when the 9th Bucharest Biennale, “Farewell to Research”, curated by Henk Slager in 2020 was announced. The philosopher Peter Osborne consequently analyzed the concept of postresearch and its self-contradictory claim of wanting to leave the research paradigm.1 He emphasized that artistic research must fulfil a non-administrative function, as does the “concept of art” by neglecting or revising its form. In comparison, higher education standards and academic legitimation processes of artistic research follow stricter standardization rules (e.g., written supplements). If artistic research neither competes with the “concept of art” (whatever that is?) nor acts as a legitimate science or discipline and furthermore does not escape administration, should these practices reclaim their status as art? Within the unresolved question of how to position artistic research between art and science – or more specifically in the humanities – lies also its attraction, its character or junction for crossing disciplines and critical studies. Artistic research has what the theorist Natalie Loveless called a polydisciplinamorious character which can lead future debates from methodo- logical introspection to collaborate in postresearch practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
POSTRESEARCH!
文章论述了艺术机构研究的现状及其矛盾。后研究能否成为艺术研究的关键推动力?“后研究”的命题首次在欧洲艺术研究的背景下被引入,是在2020年由Henk Slager策划的第九届布加勒斯特双年展“告别研究”宣布时提出的。因此,哲学家彼得·奥斯本分析了后研究的概念及其想要离开研究范式的自相矛盾的主张他强调艺术研究必须履行一种非行政的功能,就像“艺术概念”一样,忽略或修改其形式。相比之下,高等教育标准和艺术研究的学术合法化过程遵循更严格的标准化规则(例如书面补充)。如果艺术研究既不与“艺术概念”(不管那是什么?)竞争,也不作为一门合法的科学或学科,而且也不逃避管理,那么这些实践是否应该重新获得艺术的地位?如何将艺术研究定位于艺术与科学之间,或者更具体地说,定位于人文学科之间,这个尚未解决的问题也存在于它的吸引力、它的特点或交叉学科和批判性研究的结合点。艺术研究具有理论家娜塔莉·洛夫莱斯(Natalie Loveless)所说的多学科特征,这可以引导未来的辩论从方法论的内省到研究后实践的合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis
Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Prakalbinti aplinką: XVII a. – XVIII a. pabaigos vaikų portretų atributika Platus akiratis, gilus mąstymas, daugiašakė profesinė veikla Tarp „saule apsisiautusios Moters“ ir romaninės statulėlės. Gerbiamas atvaizdas tarp kulto ir dailės istorijos Mementote Josephum Woronowicz... Šakynos bažnyčios liturginių indų rinkinys Altorių spalvingumas ir ikonografija XVII a. pirmoje pusėje Vilniaus vyskupijos bažnyčiose
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1