null Dialogue is the purpose



I am frequently asked if art produced by artistic researchers differs from art produced by those who are outside the academic world. My answer is generally no, but thinking again it would not be unconditionally. So why would our Research Pavilion want to be a part of this year´s Venice Biennale, curated by Christine Macel.

One of art’s most interesting objectives is to question conventions that have been formed within a certain context, be it in politics, norms or values, or merely in the discussion of the concept of beauty or aesthetics. All art is generally in a dialogue with the public sphere through exhibitions, concerts, published works, performances and the like. Ideally, that is where the quality of an artwork is put to its test.

But, according to the famed art collector Charles Saatchi who was quoted in The Guardian looking back at the Venice Biennale in 2015:

“Few people in contemporary art demonstrate much curiosity. The majority spend their time at the biennale socializing rather than looking at the artwork or examining why one artist is more interesting than another, or why one picture works and another doesn’t.”

Artistic research is a highly debated term, and yet it is indisputable that the practice of the arts and its outcome is central to artistic research. What characterises artwork produced in the context of artistic research in academia is the articulation of new insights and knowledge enhancement. It is a procedure of raising one’s awareness of the reflective process that is rooted in the artistic work before, during the making, and after the exposure.

Art produced for galleries or commissioned by dealers for the purpose of sale, must very often necessarily convene to something other than the idea of art as the last bastion for freedom of speech. Perhaps the greatest virtue for the artist working within artistic research is that the projects are produced in an autonomous space, without the constraints of having to customize the artwork for an exhibition space where the risk of failure is just as much to be overseen as to be judged a total bore.

Whether the artist has received funding for research through employment in an education institution or as a Ph.D. student, the conditions are that new insights or methods are to be shared and made accessible to a broader audience. The work is up for debate and for critical reflection, at its best pointing out questions about what the future will hold. When the artwork is exposed, the purpose of its making is made evident through new insights and understanding. There is no competition to catch the attention of a constipated or sensation seeking audience.

Indeed, art produced in the context of research is often demanding for the audience in the sense that it is not homogeneous. It is generally produced in a context where new ideas are tried out and critically scrutinised. It asks of the viewers that they give their time and attention so that they may immerse themselves in often demanding investigations.

Christine Macel’s Venice Biennale will be titled “Viva Arte Viva.” She writes: “More than ever, the role, the voice and the responsibility of the artist are crucial in the framework of contemporary debates.” In an age where art is increasingly commercialized, the field of artistic research offers an opportunity for artists to conduct investigative activities without market-driven considerations, and where being in dialogue with an active and participative audience is precisely the purpose.

Cecilie Broch Knudsen is a chair of Norwegian Artistic Research Programme NARP and member of the Research Pavilion’s Steering Group.


This article has originally been published in the May issue of Uniarts Helsinki's IssueX magazine, this time a special edition dedicated to the Research Pavilion.