Advertisement

Knowledge, Technology & Policy

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 157–163 | Cite as

Knowing Through Making: The Role of the Artefact in Practice-led Research

  • Maarit Mäkelä
Original Paper

Abstract

During the last decade, research in art and design in Finland has begun to explore new dimensions. Artists and designers have taken an active role in contextualising and interpreting the creative process in practice, as well as the products of this process, by looking at the process itself and the works produced through it. From this new point of view, the knowledge and the skills of a practising artist or designer form a central part of the research process, and this has produced a new way of doing research. In this new type of research project, part of the research is carried out as art or design practice. The central methodological question of this emerging field of research is: how can art or design practice interact with research in such a manner that they will together produce new knowledge, create a new point of view or form new, creative ways of doing research? In this article, the making and the products of making are seen as an essential part of research: they can be conceived both as answers to particular research questions and as artistic or designerly argumentation. As an object made by an artist–researcher, the artefact can also be seen as a method for collecting and preserving information and understanding. However, the artefacts seem unable to pass on their knowledge, which is relevant for the research context. Thus, the crucial task to be carried out is to give a voice to the artefact. This means interpreting the artefact. During the process of interpretation, furthermore, the artefact has to be placed into a suitable theoretical context. In this process, the final products (the artefacts) can be seen as revealing their stories, i.e. the knowledge they embody.

Keywords

Knowing Making Artefact Practice-led research 

References

  1. AHRB. 2001. Guide for the fellowships in the creative and performing arts scheme. London: The UK Arts and Humanities Research Board.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, M. 2002. The role of the artefact in art and design research. International journal of design sciences and technology 10 (2): 19–24.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, M. 2004. Learning from experience: approaches to the experimental component of practise-based research. Forskning, reflection, utveckling. Rapport från ett seminarium i Sigtuna 2004 http://Vikhagen.net/research/ForskningReflektion.pdf.
  4. Braidotti, R. 1994. Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference on contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, N. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies 3 (4): 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cross, N. 1999. Design research: a disciplined conversation. Design issues 15 (2): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, N. 2001. Designerly ways of knowing. Design discipline versus design science. Design issues 17 (3): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durling, D., Friedman, K., & Gutherson, P. 2002. Editorial: debating the practise-based Ph.D. International journal of design sciences and technology 10 (2): 7–18.Google Scholar
  9. Eskola, T. 1997. Water lilies and wings of steel: interpreting change in the photographic imaging of Aulanko park. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  10. Irigaray, L. 1974. Speculum de l’autre femme. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  11. de Lauretis, T. 1984. Alice doesn’t. Feminism, semiotics, cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. de Lauretis, T. 1986. Feminist studies/critical studies: Issues, Terms and Contexts. In Feminist studies/critical studies, edited by T. de Lauretis, 1–19. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mäkelä, M. 2003. Saveen piirtyviä muistoja. Subjektiivisen luomisprosessin ja sukupuolen representaatioita. Helsinki: University of Art and Design. [Memories on clay: representations of subjective creation process and gender.]Google Scholar
  14. Ryynänen, L. 1999. Arts, Research and Doctoral Studies in Finland. Helsinki: Academy of Finland.Google Scholar
  15. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Schön, D. 1995/1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Hants: Arena.Google Scholar
  17. Scrivener, S. 2000. Towards the operationalisation of design research as reflection in and on action and practise. In Foundations for the future. Doctoral education in design, edited by D. Durling & K. Friedman, 405–415. Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Scrivener, S. 2002. Characterising creative-production doctoral projects in art and design. International journal of design sciences and technology 10 (2): 25–44.Google Scholar
  19. Scrivener, S. and Chapman, P. 2004. The practical implications of applying a theory of practise based research: a case study. Proceedings of the research into practise conference. Selected papers vol. 3. http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/reseasch/papers/wpades/vol3/ssfull.html
  20. Simon, H. 1996/1969. The sciences of the artificial. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Art and Design HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations