Chapter 2:
Profiles of disciplines and aRt&D methods
Our point of departure is an analysis of the friction between expectations and practice in collaborations in the field of interdisciplinary art, science and technology. The subject is analysed through mapping out stereotypical images from potential collaborators from the arts, science and engineering in twenty and 21st century literature and field studies. This chapter investigates firstly; the most commonly used and described stereotypes, from all disciplines involved. These stereotypes reflect the expectations and interests of the authors. These stereotyped images are compared to roles, objectives and methods used by artists. Comparative literature studies based on practice are used to describe the correlated research and development methods associated with the different stereotypes. The correlation between different kinds of collaboration strategies and types or genres of electronic art work is then analysed and compared with these of previously determined stereotypes. The methods have been determined by literature (if available) and examples from practice and theory.
I take the position that when one is able to communicate about one’s expectations, objectives and method, collaboration becomes a less tedious operation. On these occasions, one cannot expect the involved partners to understand undefined expectations, objectives and methods. Otherwise, the collaborators cannot even consider a suitable artistic method for accomplishing their mission. This brings forward the risk of using other methods from remote disciplines, which do not match with the work process or aims or objectives. Often one observes a prevalence of technical or scientific methods being forced upon the artistic collaborators due to a lack of known artistic methods.
The stereotypes about the ‘other’ discipline(s) that occur most frequently in literature, and their accompanying preconceptions, are used as a reference for the expectations of potential collaborators. These assumptions are then compared with the artistic methods as described in practice-based literature.
This first half of chapter 2 continues with a selection of observations in literature based on practice by researchers from the art and science field. These observations add a nuance to the stereotypes as a presumed source for the confusion and it illustrates the effect of ignorance about each other’s knowledge domains.
In addition to this, relevant methods from nearby disciplines are investigated for their relevance. From here several types of methods, which are applied in interdisciplinary practice, are proposed. These methods are thus based on field research, case studies and literature from other disciplines. The proposed methods will be double checked and compared with models and comparative studies of other authors from different backgrounds. The artist’s objectives in contemporary interdisciplinary collaboration teams described in literature and observed in practice are taken as the guiding line for the proposed methods. Some overlap or connections with categories of methods and objectives proposed by other authors are observed through comparative studies on artistic approaches. In contrast to most of these studies, this investigation takes the intrinsic value of electronic art research and development as the main criterion for the selection of three categories of research and development: ‘problem solving’, a ‘collisions’ approach and a ‘processpatching’ or ‘connecting’ approach. Problem solving refers to methods known from design and engineering; it is also referred to as a ‘solution led’ approach. The collisions approach refers to a self-sufficient or Do-It-Yourself method, which references cultural-activism and independent art practice. Processpatching or connecting consists of a plurality of methods not previously described as such. From here, the matches and mismatches between the expectations (stereotypes) and contemporary art practice become visible. The differences and misconceptions are shown in compared approaches and aims in the stereotypes (the assumed and theoretic roles) and the real art practice. The discussed approaches and methods are placed in a larger artistic context and include references to methods from the interdisciplinary context and nearby disciplines to complete the picture. The overview of the methods and approaches in the second part of this chapter also informs the reader about the frequently observed habit of artists to ‘borrow’ methods from nearby disciplines, which are re-appropriated for specific tasks or parts of their work. This processpatching art practice of re-appropriation and tagging together different methods and approaches, provides a framework to define a true artistic method that is clearly lacking in today’s literature. This chapter on literature studies concludes with a reference-set and the characteristics of what I call the processpatching method, which will be investigated in detail in the case studies in chapter 3.
