Is it Art or Artistic Research? Notes on a Difficult Definition

 

Since art schools around the world introduced the PhD in artistic research, the question has arisen as to what actually makes the work of artists genuine research? Is every work of art created by an artist already artistic research? Or do artists also have to ask precise research questions – and, in addition, formulate answers so that knowledge and truths can be gained, as is common in science? Or an even more difficult question: Are works that emerge from artistic research different from "normal" works of art, as they have always been created? What, then, is the difference? 

As I would like to show, the European tradition of artistic research has responded to this in three approaches, which can be divided into three historical phases. In today's understanding of artistic research, social relevance and the opening of the arts to social engagement play a central role. In this context, we can, for example, look back to Joseph Beuys’ idea of ​​“social sculpture.” Was that already artistic research? Would that be a good model? As I would like to show, the idea of ​​a “social artwork” is still viable, however, Beuys's approach to its implementation poses a problem from today's perspective (particularly with regard to the role of the artist himself). The Brazilian artist Lygia Clark took the opposite path: She began with a fairly traditional understanding of painting and gradually moved towards a form of artistic research, also developing an interesting concept of “social sculpture”. By contrasting these two approaches, I want to emphasize that artistic research always involves a questioning of the concept of art itself – and this makes the definition all the more difficult, but also more interesting.