Theory and Practice-led Research: Historically-based Research as a Springboard for Enquiry

Abstract

Much of the discussion around research in art has centred on the distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. The differentiation made between theory; seen as written work, and practice; seen as art-making, implies that intellectual activity resides in one and not in the other. This demarcation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature an artwork. Artwork is rather, a ‘text’ that embodies meaning and knowledge.

This paper will demonstrate that historically based research can provide the initial springboard for the enquiry. It would be expected that the written piece accompanying the art-form would demonstrate the creative thought process related to integration of knowledge. This may consequently push the boundaries of a particular area of research and methodology in that theory is iseparable from practice; that theory evolves out of practice and is modified by further practice. Literary work (texts) and pictorial work (art-forms) are both manifestations of logos. Logos is a double-natured action; it is characterized by logic and form. Semiosis itself is a productive activity of human logos that presuposes some sort of form. Writers or visual artists attempt to render the idea of a thing by means of a form that which an audience tries to recover, i.e. read, meaning from the work. Ricoeur does not differentiate between a literary work and a visual or material work in this respect.

The paper concludes by indicating that art making, then, is practice only in as much as writing is practice. The problem of meaning, of knowledge, in a text is taken to apply equally to all cultural production. The different kinds of forms of semiosis through which we denote a thing, they all together contribute to a unified understanding, which none of these alone could convey.