Chapter 1:
ARt&D; the processpatching context
... What distinguishes electronic art is, on the one hand, that it works mainly with mechanical, electronic and digital technologies and means of communication, and, on the other, that it is always made in collaborations in which the contributions of scientists and technicians (hard- and software engineers) are as great as those of the artists who supply the ideas, concepts and in particular the motivations.
(Brouwer, Fauconnier, Mulder, Nigten)[9]
Electronic art is positioned in both art and technology contexts. As such, collaboration is a crucial aspect of today’s electronic art practice. Electronic art patches together elements from the arts, engineering and computer science environments. This investigation positions itself in the electronic art laboratory and provides information about the research and development process of the artists in the collaborative context. Evidently, it takes the full research and development process into account.
Last century’s media technology and the arts show that there are several examples for understanding artistic research as material exploration, examples can be found in the fields of photography, film, kinetic art, machine art, video, and, more recently, digital media. The art discourse dealing with new forms of art stems mainly from theoretical disciplines, which analyse the produced content, for example, media theory, cultural studies and critical theory. The observed shift from product or object towards process or experience as the outcome of interactive or mediated artworks has led recently to new directions in the critical discourse (Quinz et al).[10]
To date, however, art discourse has paid little attention to reflect upon the research and development process of technology-based art and the artistic consequences of the collaborative aspects. The discourse dealing with the research and development process or the making of interdisciplinary art and technology practice is nearly absent in today’s knowledge resources. This is a major problem for the contemporary artist who plans to work with technology; in particular those who intend to collaborate in the research and development process with other disciplines. This absence of knowledge can be traced back to the 1960s when technology was incorporated into the creation process of the artwork, which introduced new alliances for the artists and re-orientation for the art (Bijvoet).[11]
This caused a gap between theory and practice, which has been a major obstacle for the establishment and education of electronic art . The critics and artists even used two different description reference sets: the art critics characterised media art in this era as chance and random, while the artists involved used terms borrowed from system theory to describe media art. These terms were far removed from the terminology used in art criticism and art history. Bijvoet repeats Walter Benjamin’s [12] observation that the established art sector in the beginning of the last century was resistant to technology-driven innovation in the arts. Technologically mediated art forms, such as photography or film, opened up new worldviews in avant-garde that were opposed to established art institutions. However, the effect of technology in today’s art practice stretches beyond the art establishment as it includes engaged collaboration among practitioners from various disciplines.
In this respect, Guattari and Deleuze[13] suggest that the artist is particularly well equipped to conceptualise the necessary steps for this interdisciplinary work because, unlike engineers, s/he is not tied to a particular program or plan for a product, and can change the course of a project at any point if an unexpected event or accident intrudes. I take Guattari and Deleuze’s vision and investigate how this works in today’s interdisciplinary art practice, for example, in relation to how the improvised artistic approach works in interdisciplinary teams.
Today’s interdisciplinary collaborators create a zone between existing disciplines; a conceptual space between existing knowledge domains. This conceptual zone in between the disciplines is identified as a potential zone for innovation in the arts. For this zone or space between the disciplines I use the term transvergence as introduced by Marcos Novak.[14]
This space serves as an ‘artistic interface’, providing space for cross-disciplinary experiments.[15] Currently interdisciplinary projects often become a technical challenge; the artists involved in these projects act as pioneers without acknowledging their own professional expertise. One of the goals of this research is to propose models for this collaboration in order to improve collaboration in this emerging space between the domains. It is important to state that the artistic motivation to engage with technology does not necessarily require collaboration. The artists who dive deep into the materials, the medium or matter themselves are also main catalysts for innovation in the arts. This DIY attitude and explorative research differs from single discipline oriented persons who look for collaborators to assist them (Somerville and Rapport).[16]
As a continuation of the research by Somerville and Rapport, my research unravels the differences between multi- and interdisciplinary collaborations through the motivation, objectives and background of the participants. Art history and art criticism mostly focus on a homogeneous artistic profession, where the artist works individually or with other artists. Recently the practice of art-making has shifted from an individual or homogeneous art practice towards a team practice with different backgrounds. This research focuses on the growing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaboration areas, where the outspoken and analysed art methods form the basis for collaboration among team members with different backgrounds. The relevance of existing tools, concepts and knowledge from other disciplines are investigated in relation to how they support the collaboration process. In particular, anthropology, theatre and design practice bring forward relevant concepts to balance the disciplinary boundaries. In particular the boundary object[17] and third space concept (objects, materials, a vocabulary, etc. that help participants with different backgrounds to build a shared understanding) turn out to be relevant as enabling concepts for those who work in the transvergence zone.
I investigate the artistic research and development methods applied to different genres of electronic art through closer examination of several recurring motivations and attitudes towards technology. Based on literature and field studies, I identify a main category for multidisciplinary collaboration, one for independent and multi-professional practice and one category for interdisciplinary collaboration. All three categories comprise a collection of related methods and approaches. The three main methodological categories are: the multidisciplinary problem solving or the reductive method, the self sufficient or DIY method, and the interdisciplinary connecting and re-contextualising approach or Processpatching method.
These are compared with methods from other disciplines and the outcome is connected again with the existing theoretical framework. This discourse is, just as electronic art itself, a patchwork of concepts and theories from a variety of expert fields. This explains why my research moves through time, technological disciplines and artistic disciplines, where each area is investigated for its relevant discourse and knowledge.
The historical reference of this investigation goes back to the techno-mediated art forms, starting with film, kinetic- and machine art as precursors to contemporary digital art, and from there I move to the audiovisual and multimedia branches. This research investigates the missing facets in current art history about electronic art, which are crucial for the research and development process and the making of electronic art in interdisciplinary teams.
There are several useful resources from other eras in the arts that are used as a reference. For example, the handbooks and educational material by Walter Gropius and others are used as a reference to the Bauhaus[18] methodology. Theoretical studies on art and technology are used to compare different attitudes or parallels in time. A key aspect of this investigation into electronic art research and development methods is the development of the medium itself, its social acceptance, and cultural embedding. While other related artistic or cultural practices provide useful ideas, my focus is on electronic art and its specific workflow with respect to team working.
