1.1. Motivation
'As new technologies come into play, people are less and less convinced of the importance of self-expression. Teamwork succeeds private effort. '
(M. McLuhan) [19]
Marshall McLuhan’s prediction stems from the late 1960s and was put into practice during recent decades. This investigation illustrates that the growing importance of heterogeneous teamwork demands a clear profile and critical, analytical models for artistic contribution to flourish. This research is motivated by the need for improving team work in an artistic context. The required models demand novel approaches, as the resources needed to build appropriate models of artistic collaborative practice engaged with digital technologies do not exist in the fields of visual art history and critical theory.
The urgency of this research is driven by the considerable gap in the literature dealing with the motivation and expectations of collaboration from an artistic point of view. This is illustrated on a daily basis in my role as media-laboratory manager at the V2_ institute for the unstable media[20] in Rotterdam (NL). In the V2_Lab, artists, engineers and scientists work together on research and development of software and hardware for art and technological projects. In 1998, I introduced the term aRt&D (research and development in art) to indicate the difference between existing and familiar R&D (Research and Development) in industry and science laboratories. Art research is distinguished from scientific and technological research by the fact that it is itself a form of reflection and not a means of reflection and theory formation (scientific research) nor problem solving (technological research).[21] In a general sense, most R&D methods in industry and applied science focus on optimising measurable processes or product improvement, and work with clearly outlined targets. However, in artistic research and development, the evaluation criteria are less clearly defined and there are no unique standard for measurement. In that sense, the aRt&D process resembles some aspects of basic scientific research. While, different from basic research, aRt&D delivers working prototypes,, processes or experiences. The collaboration between computer science, engineering and art thus represents a layer of diversity and new combinations, and is therefore worthwhile exploring in addition to existing R&D. Artistic exploration of new technologies fosters innovation in the arts, and art concepts often impose demands of functionality that may lead to further R&D. Artistic research and development, although informed by technological and (computer) scientific R&D, has neither the technological or (computer) scientific tradition nor its burdens and constraints. This, however, should not be used as an excuse to mystify artistic research and development, as that generates frustrations and unintended misunderstandings among collaborators. In the arts, unlike other disciplines, clearly defined ways of working are often perceived as a limiting factor for the artistic process, or even endanger the traditionally glorified mysterious art making process. As a provocation, I therefore have deliberately decided to refer to the artistic work approaches as ‘methods’; I intend to break with the old tradition and to raise awareness of the importance of verbalising one’s principles of practice. Note that I use the term ‘method’ according to its most common meaning: a particular way of doing something. Unlike the used strictness of methods seen in other disciplines such as science, I use a wide interpretation of the term ‘method’ that allows for multiple interpretations, and provides enough freedom to support the artistic process and to liberate artists from the sometimes limiting and vague romantic approach. This aim is motivated by the need for artists to communicate their research and creation process, in order to experience the benefit of a raised artist’s profile in interdisciplinary collaborations. This research deals with the challenge in defining an artistic method, without its limiting factors, to encourage dialogue among team members and to provide a framework of reference. The provided artistic methods are tools for support and evaluation of the artistic contribution in the interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary work processes, and thus differ from the evaluation process of the artwork itself.
