外文翻译--艺术和设计的知识与研究.doc

2715单词，1.4万英文字符，4100汉字Knowledge and research in art and designBirmingham Institute of Art & Design, University of Central England, Margaret Street,Birmingham B3 3BX, UK The idea of research has tended to elicit two sorts of response from artists and designers. On the one hand, it is perceived as the antithesis of art and design activity, something to do with questionnaires and statistics, test-tubes and laboratories, at one remove from the real world with which artists and designers seek to engage. On the other hand, it is argued, artists and designers have been doing research all along, dealing with issues of technology, materials, meaning and communication, at a sophisticated level. Research is simply an integral part of all art and design activity. Although the latter has much to recommend itself, and I would argue constitutes a distinctive tradition of practical research, neither of these responses is entirely satisfactory. Indeed, it could be suggested that the switch from the former to the latter is simply a pragmatic response to changes in the funding of higher education1, an attempt to seek credit for existing practice, without wishing to change that practice in any way. Recent trends in higher education in art and design have combined to make the question of research increasingly important. There is a growing recognition in art and design that in order to achieve parity of status with the more traditional academic disciplines, and, importantly, to attract sufficient funding to develop its potential, there will need to be a greater attentiveness to the needs of research. As Allison points out, there will be important financial and status implications for higher education institutions.Research activity, in terms of volume, quality and direction, will be a major issue in the funding of institutions, courses and programme areas. It would be a reasonable guess that quality league tables of institutions will be devised and that both the allocation to leagues and places in the leagues will be related to institutional research profiles2. However, as Allison also points out, the issue of funding follows from the ability of practitioners and academics within the field of art and design to create an environment appropriate to the development of research, and not the other way around. And, of course, it is more than simply a question of ability: There must be an institutional, or pedagogical, or academic, or technical, or some reason for wanting to do research. Not just status, promotion and fund-raising 1. The question of what counts as research in art and design is once again brought to the fore. For funding reasons alone it is important that research in art and design is recognized as such. Yet there is no clear consensus about how this should be achieved. Allisons collection of data for his database of art and design research suggested that, research degree registrations are not an adequate measure of the amount of research which is being carried out in art and design as they constitute only a relatively small proportion of total research activity3. Allisons suggestion is that there is a need within higher education in art and design, to build a “professional attitude to research2, by which he means a more systematic and rigorous approach to understanding and referring to previously completed research, and to communicating research findings to the field. Of course, this is both commendable and necessary, yet if it is to be successful, I believe there is a prior need to deal with the more philosophical question of why the academic accreditation of research in art and design, in particular by higher degrees by research, should be welcomed, in itself, and not simply as a way of generating funds. The aim of this paper is to explore the question raised by Frayling, why research in art and design? In his paper Research in art & design Frayling makes the distinction, adapted from Herbert Reads ideas on art education, between research into art and design, research through art and design and research for art and design4. Research into art and design is perhaps the most conventional of the three, and accounts for research where art or design is the object of study, for example historical, sociological, and technical approaches, along with a number of others, can all be considered in this way. This represents without doubt the strongest tradition of research within the field of art and design. Art history, particularly, is a long established discipline with its own authorities and approaches to research. However, with the changes taking place in social and cultural theory it is not clear that art history will be able to maintain this privileged and separate status. Research through art and design accounts for research where art or design is the vehicle of the research, and a means of communicating the results. Research for art and design is the most controversial of the three, and the least amenable to traditional academic conceptions of research. Frayling describes it as: Research where the end product is an artefact where the thinking is, so to speak, embodied in the artefact, where the goal is not primarily communicable knowledge in the sense of verbal communication, but in the sense of visual or iconic or imagistic communication 2. This final category accords with views which argue that art and design activity, as it stands, already involves a high degree of research, with a small r. Frayling uses the example of Picasso, who, he points out, saw the gathering of reference materials as a means to an end - the painting - and not of interest in themselves, or worthy of communicating to an audience. The question Frayling raises is why, excluding the resource issue, anyone should want to register such activity for an academic research degree, when its primary goal is the art itself, and not knowledge or understanding. The argument is a familiar one, given that there exist institutionally separate ways of recognizing achievement in the arts, is it legitimate to seek academic approval as well. It is, as the argument goes, rather like awarding degrees in literature to great novelists. Although research degree submissions containing a practical element have been recognized for some time, researchers in art and design have been slow to take up the opportunity. One reason for this may be lack of a clearly articulated artistic or design reason for doing so. It is this issue I wish to address. As it stands Fraylings analysis of art and design research activity seems to cover all possibilities, and on this basis one is tempted to conclude with him, that it would be mistaken to seek to justify the research status of solely practical work. However, to base proposals for the future of art and design research on an analysis of the present situation, may be to miss a significant opportunity, and reinforce an ideology of the arts and creativity (Frayling notes Picassos suspicion of art historians) which inhibits the development of a research culture. What I am suggesting is that Fraylings paper evidences a failure of imagination, and despite the subtleties of his argument, it is underpinned by, and in danger of reinforcing, the institutional divide between theory and practice in art and design. As Coyne and Snodgrass point out, the development of an educational practice of design has been hampered by the adherence of many to, what they refer to as, the dual knowledge thesis: The argument that there are two ways of thinking - logical, analytical and rational on the one hand, and subjective, idiosyncratic and irrational on the other 5. It is equally clear that such a position militates against the successful development of art and design research. It is the perception of art and design as inherently mysterious activities, which are in some way inaccessible, and about which little can be said, that has provided a conceptual basis for the division between theory and practice, and hence between practical work and communicable research. It is not difficult to see in the emphasis on the intuitive and sensory qualities of art, the Cartesian dualism between mind and body. However, given that (post)modern philosophy has brought this opposition into question, and shown the dangers and limitations of enlightenment rationalism, it seems only right that artists and designers should also question this as an explanation of their own practice 6. The tendency towards self-reflexivity in contemporary culture, and the blurring of the boundaries between the theorist and the practitioner, the critic and artist/designer, provides a unique opportunity for developing a culture of research in art and design, and a genuinely critical and reflexive practice. As Coyne and Snodgrass conclude: Where there is mystery then designing is removed from effective dialogue. Design ideas are personal and unavailable for general scrutiny. The designer becomes a party to that other great theme of the Romantic movement, the oppressed and misunderstood hero5. In place of this Coyne and Snodgrass suggest a dialogical or hermeneutical understanding of design, where the process of design involves interactive dialogue with the design situation. The value of this position is that Coyne and Snodgrass are arguing that there is a considerable degree of continuity between the production of knowledge in design and the production of knowledge in other fields. The idea of continuity is, I believe, a particularly important one. Despite the complexity of the relationship between language and the activity of design7, recent work on protocol studies offers evidence of a productive and rewarding relationship between re- search into the nature of design activity, and the process of design itself 8. To return to Fraylings set of distinctive art and design research practices, I think it is possible to argue that the development of research in art and design depends not so much on the promotion of research in one or all of the categories, but rather in seeing how art and design research can actually dissolve, what may be institutionalized divisions of knowledge, rather than intellectually justifiable ones. The best of art and design research seems to facilitate an interaction between the different research traditions, practical and academic. Given that the majority of practising artists in this country have strong links with the educational sector it seems unnecessary to hold back from this interaction any longer, both traditions have much to gain. Two examples, one of a completed doctoral submission, the other of a research degree in progress, provide an illustration of what I have in mind here. The first example, is Tom Gilhespys doctoral submission which combined both a written thesis and a practical exhibition of work, under the title, A theoretical appraisal and artistic response to Soviet monumental sculpture. The contribution of the thesis is to reassess the development and artistic significance of Soviet monumental sculpture. What is interesting for my argument here is the interaction between the personal, intuitive and sensory response to the subject, the sculptural research, and the more traditional academic and historical research. Gilhespy refers to a positive interactive exchange 9. Consider the comments Gilhespy makes about how the practice of sculptural work influenced the direction of the thesis: The simple act of using a Russian pointing machine and scaling up and carving a head of Lenin at monumental size led, when combined with other information and reading, to images of Lenin and his Plan for monumental propaganda becoming central to the submission 9. Similarly, the interaction worked in the opposite direction, to the benefit of the practical art work. Although there has, and rightly so. been an intellectual shift in the sculpture produced during the period of the research there remains an element of tracing historical influences. At the beginning of the research I was following the trail of a constructivist language as I understood it, quoting Boccioni, Popova and Tatlin, which did not jell with the information I was acquiring. The trail is now Soviet and I believe follows the influence of Lenins ideas on monumentalism. Stylistic changes and a more traditional use of torm and materials arc also attributable to the influence of the research and the needs of the subject matter9. This submission does not fit neatly into any one of Fraylings categories, but instead draws on knowledge, and research methodologies attributable to all three. Both the written thesis and the practical submission are successful and coherent on their own terms, both make a contribution and are recognized as doing so by the award of the PhD, and the exhibition of the sculptural work at the lkon Gallery, Birmingham. Frayling looks to the past when he raises the spectre of having to award an honorary PhD, in absentia, to every artist since the Renaissance, it may be equally valuable to look forward, to further fruitful interactions between different research traditions. As Oxman points out design studies has now become an interdisciplinary focus for research in which several constellations of research approaches are emerging which are beginning to complement one another10. The second example is a piece of research aiming to offer a new theory for the production of Hellenistic and Roman mosaic glass. The starting point for the proposal was the intuitive feeling that theories put forward by archaeologists, concerning the production of mosaic glass from this period, did not ring true from a glassmakers point of view, as this student put it, that was not how a glassmaker would have done it. The process of research involves the putting to the test of this intuition, and developing a new theory of production based on practical experimentation. Considering this in terms of Fraylings categories, it is possible to argue that the research could be placed in any of the three, and in fact derives at least part of its originality from the way in which it draws upon, and contributes to different research traditions. The research is clearly into art and design, from a technological perspective, it seeks to challenge established archaeological interpretations of a craft practice. It is also research through art and design: practical work is both the vehicle for the research, a practical process of trial and error, and, in the documentation of the stages of the process, a means of communicating the results. Finally, it is also research for art and design: what motivates the student is her commitment to the practice of making glass. The finished pieces of glass have, of themselves, an aesthetic value. It is my guess that the research would never have been embarked on as a purely problem solving exerci