Practice as a Symptom of Research

What is the distinction between “pure practice” and “research-focused practice?” It is typical to undertake background research in order to produce most forms of creative practice. This kind of research activity may involve finding out how to use a particular medium, how to refine a technique, or simply reviewing what similar work already exists. Many creative practitioners would claim to undertake research in this way. But any creative practice coming from this process cannot necessarily be described as research. It would be better to describe it as an output of a reasoned research activity. So how can research as described here be distinguished from research that comes from practice itself? Often in creative contexts, research is understood as a discrete activity and the making of practice is seen as another. The key to addressing how practice can be defined as research is in how both practice and research are brought into relation with one another. Importantly, for practice to be research, it must contain a certain knowledge-building capacity. This paper will consider what defines practice as research. It will claim that practice can only reveal new knowledge when it is understood as a symptom of research. My goal is to attempt to bring about a homology between research and practice through the notion of the symptom.