|
Outline of Section 3:
|
|
|
. |
These are lecture notes from a series of of speakers who have recently completed art PhDs. Each was asked to speak abpout their research process and methodology. The lecture took place in
Ashburne Lecture Theatre, University of Sunderland, Tue 6
Nov 2001. |
|
|
Julie Livsey: the research process/methodology for her PhD at Newcastle University: Water, sculptor, sculptural form: An interactive partnership (2000). Julie Livsey started by showing slides and talking about her artwork in three sections: Pre-PhD period, PhD period, Post-PhD period: Pre-PhD period: Often worked in residencies and arts in education with many conditions attached. Worked with 'visually versatile' shapes with references to shells - when photographing them on the beach, one fell into the water, and started an interest in working with water. PhD period: Starting research question based around "Should sculpture know its place?" Residency on St. Mary's Island, many experimental floating structures, including research into buoy engineering. Some were destroyed or lost, some were submerged for certain time and visible at others. Residencies in Slovakia led to an important shift from strong/resistant/resin/artificial materials to natural materials, but still retaining buoyant shapes. Cobs series using layered materials which eroded in water - video became very important in recording this process. Slovakian Reservoir pieces, Green Festival, and Field Day projects all involved floating vegetation which made visible the movement of the water. In the Balance was a turning point because of environmental difficulties including bears, and the theme of balance. Beach Olympic projects in Australia used strands moved by the water, and documented. In Sydney Biennale in Australia, the artwork of Lepper with semi-submerged pieces was influential. Post-PhD period: Artwork has included Communion in Tynemouth metro station, using muslin, and growing plants balanced by water flasks, and Allotment Day Balance using sea coal, balanced by water and chicken feathers. |
|
BG: You contrasted the "conditions" of residencies with your PhD period. Did it offer "freedom" to concentrate on process rather than end product perhaps? JL: The research often did not result in exhibitable end products - sometimes the objects were actually destroyed by the process of research - and were certainly changed by each 'test'. We discussed if there were any specific points in time when they were "exhibitable" before they were worn out. Residencies and commissions were involved, but were considered as Case Study Reports rather than Studio Practice. They had different remits: Case Study Reports: trips away and residencies, often hectic with limitations of time, environment, materials etc. BG: PhD research infers a responsibility to share the discoveries with your peers, were you able to do that? JL: I did a paper at a conference, and workshops with other students. Part of the difficulty of communicating the research was bringing the knowledge back from remote places. Video became very important, but objects remain important too. I don't think that I completely solved this in the dissertation form. GR: I was interested in the ephemeral and process-led nature of your research artworks - has this changed the way you make artworks now? JL: "The exhibition of the process has become very relevant". I think that my artworks like Communion tend to reveal their process and 'how it works' in the artwork itself. Perhaps I'm less concerned about finding final solutions. GR: I'm interested in the public and the audience responses - was that part of your research? JL: I'm not very good at personal public contact, and it wasn't part of my research, though there were some interesting public responses, from divers who tried to steal them to someone who asked me if I was from the circus! BG: Leading on from that, you talked about "testing" the artworks. Was it 'testing' in the materials science sense? JL: No. Primarily, it was testing how combinations of things worked in contexts. Although I looked buoy engineering, it wasn't testing in a scientific way. I was "learning what I wanted to do". MA: What kind of conclusions came out of the research? JL: The thing which I was most grateful for having discovered was that a "symbiotic" relationship between water and artwork was possible. The artwork gave something back to the water, which was "making visible" the movements of water, as in the Green Festival, and Field Day projects. RM: I'm struck by the differences between your research approach and that for the public water artwork Ambit. I saw the pre-opening information exhibit, and was over-impressed by the weight of 'hard' scientific research done by the engineers - then it turned out to still have technical and scale problems when it actually happened. JL: As part of my contextual review I studied Ambit, and Anya Gallaccio's Two Sisters. One thing I learnt from my research was how even high technology has trouble fighting against the power of water, so I tried to work with it instead. My works were also short-term. GR: Were you pressured into developing your research questions very early on? I did start with the broad question of "Should sculpture know its place?", and it did become more specific, but I wasn't pressured. In fact, as I was the first student there to do a practice-led PhD, there wasn't much pressure to conform to pre-existing structures. My research approach at time felt like "a chaotic gathering" with lots of disappointments, but being "obliged to complete a template" and reflect helped to draw my workbooks into a useful form. My PhD took 5 years eventually, and I worked day and night! GR: How did you resolve the academic methodology demands with your artwork? JL: When I started I did have methods in my artwork. I was also advised to look at methods from the Social Sciences such as Robson (1993), which I did find very useful. I pulled in some methodologies for analysing and evaluating what I was doing. The most useful dissertation I found was Anne Douglas' (1992). |
|
|
Douglas, Anne (1992) Structure and Improvisation: The making aspect of sculpture. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sunderland. Livsey, J. (2000) Water, sculptor, sculptural form: An interactive partnership Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Newcastle University. Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell. last updated 12.11.01. Beryl Graham |
|
