HWD *Ology conversation Day 1

Schedule + *Ology conversation (conversation below)


Tuesday: 10:30: Vera shares longer practice.

14:00: Participants assembly

Wednesday: 1 Adriano 2 Kasia 3 Tulio 4 Federico V

Thursday: 1 Rui 2 Federico 3 Andrea 4 Vera

Friday: 1 Magda 2 Nathan 3 Quinsy 4

17:00 Participants assembly meets Lilia


The last two weeks. It was good.

What is the discussion about?

Vladimir: We want to talk about the content. And also the question of methodology and artistic research. What to focus on this week. HWD is usually about method. There is some confusion about what methodology of artistic research means. The whole field of artistic research seems confused about this. More about the artistic part than the methodology part. Why is it important to talk about *ology? One of the answers is that there is a lot of pressure from within the field of artistic research to define itself and to make its own space. To try and distinguish it from artmaking in general. This pressure comes both from Bologna-system and the field itself. To look at methodology is to take a step back and really understand: Why am I grabbing particular things and how. Moving towards cooking with recipe rather than intuitively. Artistic research is a methodology already. its a choice, why are we making that choice, it could also be other things than artistic research. Nobody forced us to be artistic researchers. There should be a connection between the subject-object matter of the research and the methodology of the research.

When you think about the money, the question becomes even more relevant. How not to be cynical about it, but to engage as seriously as possible.

I am not sure I agree. I think artistic research has been highly capitalized, it feeds the market of academia.

Thats what I mean, and if we engage there, then what kind of space to we claim there? It should be a better reason than, there is nothing else.

I could also propose an artistic research that really want to fit into the neoliberal economy.

I hope we are not doing that.

There is a lot of curiousity in the artfield. A.R. proposes a quality of reflexivity, that the artmarket also likes.

I had a conversation with Myriam van Imschoot. She said: maybe A.R. is just a fancy term we found to legitimize the time we need to make art. Spaces for A.R. make different authers come together, so maybe that is the shift.

I agree, there is a time aspect, and a lot of A.R. institutions focus on offering that time.

I question the discourse, it seems we make it a huge thing. It feels like its a paralel, but more of the market than the arts.

We need to make dossiers, why it is necessary to bring people together. The community aspect is interesting. What is the economy of that community. What is the work? What is the specificity of it. There is a need, and its also social. From the political side.

Coming together could be an aspect of its specificity. It can still be specific, even if it is low key. We need a couple of assumptions, we need to assume that it exists. If we just say its artistic practice. Than we are exploring on another.

What each institution is proposing is something specific. In University is different than in apass.

I want to hear everyone else: Why A.R.:

I agree with both time and collective. 1 Responding to a need for time, taking more time for practice to be put on a level of being consious of patterns over time.
 2The collective, at least here there is the possibility to put things in dialogue with others. 
3 Resources enter a network of resources rather than follow on what individually I can get. 
I didnt know anything of Bologna and artistic research capitalaising.
 I was driven by a need of making conscious the timelines of what and how I work. 
To me its so much hand in hang, methodology and research.
 Methodology is the stomach of the practice. The more work I did the more I need to understand how this stomach processes things. It becomes a tool that is not just one, but it is a tool for things.

Adriano: Clairvoyance as Artistic Research or *Ology for instance: 1. Assuming a presence of others, living and dead, and listening to the practices that connect us. 2. Looking for tension, habbit, complacency in these practices. 3. Play. Dramatize, ‘hack’ (structural intervention), heal practices. 4. Share: show, transmit, expose, make available for the engagement and clairvoyance of others.

Federico: Hosting - do the things you do, but also question at the same time, why. Hito Steyerl wrote about Artistic Research as a discipline that is also being in conflict at the same time.

    Thats the thing of specialization. To learn something you need to learn something. And then there is unlearning. 
    Where we are now its also process of unlearning. There has been centuries of learning, but whats after that.

Rui: Learning makes me think of failure. Sharing the failure of what we are doing. I make videos and then I edit, but its not a product, so why I edit.


Andrea: That for me relates to unlearning productivity. If failure is part of productivity. I am making a moving even though its a failure, but obersing this process is also productive. Not being scared of using the word of: I am being productive. I find it hard here: Can I finalize something?

    Productivity is a taboo.

Andrea: Even the sharing this week, you have to make productive.

Vladimir: But now you frame productivity as failure of research.

Magda: If I research about Artistic Research institutions. There is something about "I am doing artistic research" - " I am not making pieces" Personally I have the wish that these communities come closer. It creates certain identity. Artistic research. Split between finalizing and researching.

Andrea: To be productive is to understand what is already around here. Maybe Kroot will talk about that in the autodomestication workshop.

Lilia: But that is a very different way of producing. Normally you dont have the time and the people around. What appears are different than when you make a piece where you choose your collaborators.

Magda: Nevertheless it creates division. Coming back to A.R., why A.R.. I think its about understanding the positions of art practices, see the potential practicies that can be embedded or valued socially beyond producing and consuming products. Artistic work is not just products. Discovering the agency of art.

Nathan: The word finality in relation to product and production. I was going back through the text [?]. I took a note about making a product as an crystilization of whatever the artistic practice is doing at the moment, so its always evolving. Its not final. For why artistic research: Time, space, resources. In neoliberal era, spaces are harder to come by. Squats are harder to find. Cheap rent for diy work isn't as possible. Maybe these are spaces where artistic research was before it came to the academia.

Lilia: When did it start to exist, as "This is a way of doing". For me it comes from dancecompanies. Extending from their own practice, sustaining life rather than just production. Wanting more interdisciplinarity. Workspaces started to form. Its the reverse of my own history. My history is the squat structure: we get together and we form it. Then there is a movement of starting to look at it from society. Sometimes this scares me. Where is the underground? When you start looking and thing start to be possible, there must still be impossibles. Here we are in an environment of restriction.. Where are the impossibles and what are their form.

Magda: Whenever we come to the surface its hard to see under.

    A lot of underground places have a history of community organization. I think thats airbnb now. Its expensive, so thats why people go to academia.

Vladimir: For me its helpful to understand, not a shift in how art is done, but a shift in accumulation, now these practices come together, by giving them value and space. Its almost like we realized that artists have been producing two things always.

    What is art. for what is it recognized?

Vladimir: What about Leonardo Da Vinci, isnt he the godfather of artistic research? and artisinal practices. How they left atelier and travel between atelier.

Federico V: Priviledge of persisting resultless.

Vladimir: This is a priviledge that A.R. institutions try to share.

Lilia: The idea of priviledge one has to be careful with. It can be a disabler. If you have the possibility than do, because there are tons of people who dont. Please take the space if you have the priviledge.

Vladimir: What to save. Maybe first it wanted to save research from market, but now its becoming a market in itself. What do we have to continue to try and save.

Lilia: Saving time? Would it be resistance to not do? If the whole problem is productivity, than its super hard to take a position, propose something.

Do we always have to be responding to the neoliberal condition. To me its more interesting to think about it as a start and an effect. Why is all art all of a sudden political?

Magda: The more you use the name A.R. individually or as an institution. What networks do you develop this name with and think? How come that in dance structures of workshop or practice sharing the word A.R. doesnt appear. It seems more like a disciplinary brand name, and I wonder hoe we play with that name. Where do we connect this word... how do we guard this brand?

Vera: There is also something that happened the last years: The necessity to be political. For me it has been important to say "this is really artistic" I am not constructing a political system. What is our scale actually. It becomes a bit stretched. Its very weird for me that I have to talk about my artistic practice politically in a way as if it produce a kind of system that I have to defend.

Rui: Coming from cinema in Brazil. I was writing recently a grant application for a grant to write an idea for a movie. A.R. provide very different place of development than the grant applications formalities. How much do we need to define to open new spaces for practices and researching.

Lilia: We are talking about developing ways of learning. We are funded for that. And its real.

(Lunch Break)

Vladimir: Let´s make a summary, first a schedule. This morning we talked about the relationship between artistic research as methodology. The question is: if artistic research is the methodology in itself, why engage with the subject matters you engage with? My artisti research experiences from apass, mainly what ive observed - without aiming for definition - trying to undersatand the specifity of artistic research in apass... 1.Difference between a.practce and a.research, the second is an accumulation of knowloedge, to choose to bring other aspects of the practice, what sides do you look at, what is being valued. Is not intrinsic to the practive itself, what kind of context does it enter, what compositions enter specfic value systems (like instituitional value systems). And also some practices are intrinsic to artistic research: we value development of transformative vocabulary. how important language is being used, the political effects, and has to do with it being a place of invention and speculation.First you jump and the you swim, first you put and idea and then you operate it. try to fill the gap.

The big argument is that artistic research already happen in artpractices. But there the timeline is split. There is a research and a production phase. This can be circular. A loop. a ring.Important: from linear to circular.

    What that produces for me, this kind of recurrence, coming back, develops what I call the generative set: practices, materials, objects, vocabularies. Its an assemblage, its not one thing. Its a specific combination. The work of artistic research is establishing relations between these things. This can never be experienced in its totality. There is a difference between a presentation and its mechanics. Which is why it is generative. This was the formal composition part.

Ranciere made a beautiful definition of fiction: A construction of a set of relations between sense (percievable) and sense (meaning). "creating conditions for the improbably to happen" quote from friend.

At apass we talk about artistic research as engaging or a place of not knowing. The more you know, the more contact with the unknown you have. Or in reverse. Maybe if you engage with the unknown you transform the known.

Publishing, hosting, learning by teaching. peers, community.

Its not clear to me, which parts of artistic research are actually artistic. When is it not just borrowing from other fields.

How can artistic understand produce different understanding, rather than knowledge.


    What do we do it for?

    Its very personal.

    It makes me think about what drives me.

    There is the artistic research and the artist, but its not all in the artist.

    No, it manifests itself in context. The difference comes in the particular relation between the artist and the context. That particularity is very important. Maybe its a bit taboo. Because it would be the signature. What is something that belongs and maybe we can think it differently, but there is a particular way of looking. How do you nurture your own specificity. To more embrace that ah I do approach, link things this way, and not everyone does it. You dont generalize, you specify.

    It makes me think about the notion of choice. In the artistic research there is some choice, of which relation to the context I put into the set. Many things we dont chose, but what are the relations that choose to repeat or insist. Insist on choosing.

        Whats the problem with choice?

    Its not so obvious that we chose who we are. There is maybe the insistence of choosing otherwise. The doubleness of choosing, which is maybe the illusion of choosing and the desire.

        Definetely these are questions of where does the artistic come in.. Subconscious..

        My relation to artistic research... When I first engaged my master there were "research questions". Having to formulate practice in a certain way... They asked me what is your research questions. I didnt want to articulate them before, they should emerge from the practice..

        I was thinking about the question of what is artistic in the artistic research. And I wondered if what is artistic is the context or the way of doing. Sometimes I feel like that artistic research becomes artistic because of where it is situation. The context in which you situate your self to ask something. If I move to the academy my research will shift. In this context, because it allows me, then my research moves more towards this. Its not a conclusive thought, its just what was crossing my mind.

        [lost track of conversation]

  Vera: If I want to challenge Newtons theory, its very different where we arrive.

      Artistic tools are artistic tools.

        We have been arguing all morning that the choices are not random.

        I am not talking about randomness, it should have a relation to your topic.

        It should have a relation to the topic.

            With 'forensic architecture' there is a different function when they show it in the museum and in the   courthouse.

        In the museum it creates an uneasiness, how should I look at it. To me in artist there is a relation to the world, that creates other kinds of encounters, maybe this is romantic, but there is an implication of trying to understand what the world is. It has to be an emergency, otherwise you dont do this, there isn't alot of money. There is a lot of life, I would say, and this is something. Its not arbitrary.

        What do you want to do for halfway days. 
I am thinking about differences between presenting, sharing, making visible and doing together. Filming is something, how do I show that.

    Andrea: How do you know what your method is. Rui has made choices, and done those choices to make possible what you (Rui) are looking for. Are the choices then the method? 
    And what brings you to make that choice?
    How to touch on the thing that comes before the choice?

    Maybe its important to pay attention to it, to the intuition, the prepart. How is that part nutured. How does that part keep bugging other parts.

    Maybe intuition needs more credit. So its more like conscious magic.

    Knowing what you are not choosing.

    Its a myth that if  you talk about it it disappears.

    There is the potential that when you give name, it becomes stronger than the named.

    Maybe you are not using names that grow from your work.

    I wonder if this ties into the idea of non-knowledge.

    My research is about my method. My research changed alot during the settlement. I will share a performative practice.

    One method I keep actively working on, is the idea of fashing design as a discourse. For the 30 minutes I want to focus on spoken aspect, and with imaginative aspect. I will say things that you can imagine. Wearology. First I thought it was about 'where' [ology]. There is something about hypnosis.

    Rui: of noses?

    Andrea: Where is the nose?

    Federico:  Hypnosis is kitchy. and it happens anyway automatically.

    Lilia: There is a woman called Catherine Contour, She has been working with hypnosis in creative processes.

    [lost track]

    Andrea: Maybe we can make a distinction between clarity and return. Maybe I dont know what I expect in return but there is a clear proposal for what to do. I dont want to defend.

    How do I invite people into my work, how do I share my experience, so that another can be inside the work in the way I am. Becoming soft. softening as motif. To understand if it is transmittable. Maybe another feedback can be to find a collective locality of softness.

    Writing invitations for collaboration with real, imaginary, dead or alive collaborators. Practicing acknowledging difference, desire and competence in order to give authority.

    Federico V: 
    I will tell four or five stories. I will speak and you will have to listen. Its about how I became the figure of the giant barbarian.

    I will read a scripture of the procedure that I was following. And this listing is a procedure on it. It comes from the idea of going further on the abstraction and going further on the original archive of what I want to do.

    I am thinking about the setup of a cardgame. At this point I am not interested in me as the only source of my methodology. Whatever I give to myself as an exersice, I would like to do it as a workshop with you.

    I would like to share different ways that I approach image and text. Not focusing on coherence or dramaturgy, but let it be loose and a bit more open and disconnected in a way that shows these two components: image and text from different angles.