Spencer Roberts Lecture: The 'Problem' of Research in Art and Design
Christoper Frayling, then Rector at the RCA – wrote an important paper early on in the debate concerning the legitimacy of artistic research. He drew attention to the way in which artists, designers, and scholars had been caricatured in the debate, whilst making a distinction between types of artistic research:
Research in the arts
Research through the arts
Research for the arts
Frayling found the first of these categories unproblematic – it was standard humanities research (art history, cultural studies, sociology, literature etc.) The second category (research ‘through’ the arts) was presented firstly as forms of applied research and secondly as diaristic modes of research that Frayling presented as ‘action research’ (though it will be argued here that his definition is problematic). For Frayling, however, it was unclear what the last category - that of ‘research for art’ - could possibly be.
Frayling set the tone for subjectivity, ineffability and lack of communication that coloured much of the first wave of critique of the legitimacy of ‘practice-based-research’ that arguably emanated broadly from the discipline of design (through design discourse & a series of design-research conferences). To understand this we will look at some critical writings from the design community (mostly they are associated with the Ph.D. design list and it's closely associated journal Design Issues)
Professor Michael Biggs from the University of Hertfordshire – wrote an interesting paper from a constructivist perspective that highlighted how Frayling, with the introduction of these categories (‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘for’) could have been said to have constructed or invented the terms of the debate. We will pursue this line of questioning further by also examining Frayling’s use of Hollywood stereotypes (his interests lay in the direction of film theory) to construct this context. We will also show how Biggs ultimately sided with the design critics, positioning ‘research for art’ as a work of art (i.e. as not relevant to the concept of research per se), and question whether Biggs and Frayling properly explored the artistic contribution to the area of ‘action research’ that runs through much artistic practice, as well as through design activism.
Popular Stereotypes
Designer
Pre-1980s ‘Designer Boffin’ strong presence in war/sci-fi- ‘moving on to the designer, up until relatively recently the popular stereotypes was rather different. Instead of the expensive artist, we have the pipe-smoking boffin who rolls up his sleeve (always his incidentally) and gets down to some good honest hands-on experimentation. From Leslie Howard in the First of the few (1942) to Michael Redgrave in The Dam busters (1955).’
Here, designing- pragmatic doing. ‘Doing is designing for these people-not systemic hypotheses, or structures of thought or orderly procedures; but potting-shed, hit-and-miss, sorry I blew the roof off but you know how it is darling craft work.’
Late 80s Designer ( product of style TV shows- passed by Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker in the TV series Nathan Barley, 2005)
For Frayling, all stereotypes are reductive. he believes that the concept of research can be found in the convergence of stereotypes are reductive. He believes that the concept of research can be found in the convergence of stereotypes
The brain controls the hand which in turn informs the brain. ( ‘so where does this all lead? Apart from the important thought that ‘research’ is a much less diffuse, much more convergent activity that the terms of recent debate would suggest. And that research has been, can be and will be an important perhaps the most important- nourishment for the practice and teaching of art, craft and design.’)
Frayling distinctions-
Research (into) art and design- Close to standard humanities, historical, or aesthetic research
Research (through) art and design- applied research into materials- applied research into materials- investigation into ‘modding’ existing technologies/ techniques- What Frayling terms ‘action’ research: Diaristic account of studio experimentation..
Research in the arts
Research through the arts
Research for the arts
Frayling found the first of these categories unproblematic – it was standard humanities research (art history, cultural studies, sociology, literature etc.) The second category (research ‘through’ the arts) was presented firstly as forms of applied research and secondly as diaristic modes of research that Frayling presented as ‘action research’ (though it will be argued here that his definition is problematic). For Frayling, however, it was unclear what the last category - that of ‘research for art’ - could possibly be.
Frayling set the tone for subjectivity, ineffability and lack of communication that coloured much of the first wave of critique of the legitimacy of ‘practice-based-research’ that arguably emanated broadly from the discipline of design (through design discourse & a series of design-research conferences). To understand this we will look at some critical writings from the design community (mostly they are associated with the Ph.D. design list and it's closely associated journal Design Issues)
Professor Michael Biggs from the University of Hertfordshire – wrote an interesting paper from a constructivist perspective that highlighted how Frayling, with the introduction of these categories (‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘for’) could have been said to have constructed or invented the terms of the debate. We will pursue this line of questioning further by also examining Frayling’s use of Hollywood stereotypes (his interests lay in the direction of film theory) to construct this context. We will also show how Biggs ultimately sided with the design critics, positioning ‘research for art’ as a work of art (i.e. as not relevant to the concept of research per se), and question whether Biggs and Frayling properly explored the artistic contribution to the area of ‘action research’ that runs through much artistic practice, as well as through design activism.
Popular Stereotypes
Designer
Pre-1980s ‘Designer Boffin’ strong presence in war/sci-fi- ‘moving on to the designer, up until relatively recently the popular stereotypes was rather different. Instead of the expensive artist, we have the pipe-smoking boffin who rolls up his sleeve (always his incidentally) and gets down to some good honest hands-on experimentation. From Leslie Howard in the First of the few (1942) to Michael Redgrave in The Dam busters (1955).’
Here, designing- pragmatic doing. ‘Doing is designing for these people-not systemic hypotheses, or structures of thought or orderly procedures; but potting-shed, hit-and-miss, sorry I blew the roof off but you know how it is darling craft work.’
Late 80s Designer ( product of style TV shows- passed by Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker in the TV series Nathan Barley, 2005)
For Frayling, all stereotypes are reductive. he believes that the concept of research can be found in the convergence of stereotypes are reductive. He believes that the concept of research can be found in the convergence of stereotypes
The brain controls the hand which in turn informs the brain. ( ‘so where does this all lead? Apart from the important thought that ‘research’ is a much less diffuse, much more convergent activity that the terms of recent debate would suggest. And that research has been, can be and will be an important perhaps the most important- nourishment for the practice and teaching of art, craft and design.’)
Frayling distinctions-
Research (into) art and design- Close to standard humanities, historical, or aesthetic research
Research (through) art and design- applied research into materials- applied research into materials- investigation into ‘modding’ existing technologies/ techniques- What Frayling terms ‘action’ research: Diaristic account of studio experimentation..