1.2. Scope
This research is positioned in an interdisciplinary field where all collaborators involved bring along potentially relevant reference material. I limit the focus to software and hardware programming, computer science, software, and hardware based electronic art because these particular areas provide appropriate and accessible in-depth investigation opportunities. Note that there is no intention to ignore the established art field, nor the historic roots of the relevant art practices discussed in this investigation.
This research focuses on the intrinsic value of electronic arts in interdisciplinary collaboration. Most literature available on the topic focuses on (partial) migration of the arts to academic or scientific environments. On some occasions this might be the appropriate route, as reflected in the observed ‘problem solving’ approach where experts are called in for their domain-specific knowledge. In my vision, however, the intrinsic value of electronic art research and development deserves more attention as it often does not fit into existing traditional scientific or academic structures. Stephen Wilson’s[22] studies show us that this often leads to artists who have to behave like scientists in disguise. I build on Wilson’s ideas, and introduce an additional model where artists are assimilated into the academic environment. I investigate the different attitudes and the interrelated implications for collaboration, which do not necessarily lead towards integration. Well-orchestrated collisions among the collaborators and self-supportive multitasking are also considered as interesting features for the arts and academia. Intended collisions are often observed in the self-sufficient approach or DIY method, which is associated with the engaged artist or cultural activist.
This investigation takes the lead in proposing a practice-based theory for electronic art research and development methods. I draw from artistic material research approaches from the 21st century and the experiments of artists in extending their practice and working in a mixed field combining art, engineering and/or computer science. I build the analyses of artistic research approaches not only on references to artistic and cultural practice, but also on references to engineering, design and science. Relevant approaches in science and technology in the area of software and hardware development and electronic arts are compared and investigated for their suitability. In particular, the potential relevance for improving the collaboration is taken into account. The research and development areas bordering this investigation belong to a range of disciplines. These bordering areas are especially relevant for the overarching electronic art method: Processpatching. Processpatching reflects the intrinsic artistic practice of connecting remote fields and re-contextualising techniques. Several shared fields of interest amongst computer scientists and electronic artists are identified, mostly in the areas of cognitive science, interface design, human-machine interaction, wearable technology and visualisation science. These shared interest fields offer space for different types of research and development approaches, as they are not yet fully shaped. These themes are common ground for shared experiments and knowledge building among the involved disciplines. The key areas are highlighted and analysed for their potential for mixed research in literature and case studies. These fields have a strong emphasis on the interaction between technology and the user or participant. The research themes require a constant interplay between technology-oriented and user-oriented research and development, which often requires different types of expertise. The collaborator’s motivation to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration with other disciplines in these specific research themes is in part brought forward by the limitations of current technology, which is an invitation for a balanced collaboration.
The proposed artistic methods were compared and measured by the most significant twenty-first century scientific or science studies dealing with research and/or development methods. Most important references for this inventory of science and science studies were provided by Thomas Kuhn[23], Karl Popper[24], Paul Feyerabend[25], Bruno Latour[26] and B.K. Ridley[27]. Among the selected resources from art and cultural studies are C.P. Snow[28], Mika Hannula, Juha Suoranta, Tere Vaden[29] and Peter Lunenfeld[30]. Stephan Wilson[31], From an art-science background, Peter Weibel provides the most closely related theory, which takes the intrinsic value of the arts into account with respect to explicit methods.[32] Marga Bijvoet[33], Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau[34] provide some of the other scarce resources on collaboration in art, science and technology.
