Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ndcr20

Digital Creativity

ISSN: 1462-6268 (Print) 1744-3806 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ndcr20

Epistemologies of prototyping: knowing in artisticresearch

Gabriella Arrigoni

To cite this article: Gabriella Arrigoni (2016) Epistemologies of prototyping: knowing in artisticresearch, Digital Creativity, 27:2, 99-112, DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2016.1188119

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2016.1188119

Published online: 06 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 291

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Epistemologies of prototyping: knowing in artistic researchGabriella Arrigoni

Culture Lab, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

ABSTRACTIncreasingly material artefacts are attributed a key role in research in the arts anddesign. Issues of dissemination and legitimacy of knowledge are however heavilydisputed, often through redefinitions of the concept of knowledge itself. Thisarticle contributes to these debates by focusing on artistic prototypes,identified here as one of the prevailing outcomes in technologically engagedart research projects. In contrast with a common conceptualisation ofknowledge emerging from inside the world of artistic research as subjective,ineffable and emotional, I discuss four examples to highlight how artisticprototypes can support transferable and generative contributions toknowledge, grounded in ad hoc but innovative methodologies. Furthermore,the examples offer insightful considerations that help to identify artisticresearch when conducted outside official institutions, as opposed to simplyprocess-oriented art practices.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 22 April 2015Revised 29 October 2015Accepted 4 May 2016

KEYWORDSPrototyping; practice-basedresearch; transdisciplinarity;knowledge; methodology

Introduction

The growth of practice-based PhD programmesin art-related departments, especially in the UK,and the increasing presence of artists in researchand innovation labs constitute two parallelaspects of the still highly debated notion ofartistic research (Hannula, Suoranta, andVadén 2005). If the notions of art and researchalready are, individually, very difficult to cir-cumscribe and subject to fluctuating definitions,it is no surprise that the discussion around theirentanglement is articulated on multiples issuesand far from resolution. Further confusioncomes from an expanding area of convergencebetween art and design. This originates bothin the field of design, to explore more concep-tual approaches, freed from market constraints,and in mainstream contemporary art, whereartists appropriate design vocabulary to manip-ulate commercial logics and introduce stronger

links between art and everyday life (ModernaMuseet 2000; Coles 2007). In research andinnovation environments, this overlapping isassuming particular orientations aimed at criti-cally discussing technological change (Lupo2011). Critical design (Dunne 2008) forinstance adopts the languages and dissemina-tion channels of contemporary art to turndesign into tools for reflection and debate. Simi-lar approaches of inventing hypothetical devicesas a commentary to questionable aspects ofinnovation can be found both in Media Artand in design research, particularly in Researchthrough Design (RtD). More generally, severalauthors have problematised unified and cleardisciplinary delimitations of art, arguing for itstransgression into a realm of transdisciplinarityand collaboration (see for instance Obrist,Rehberg, and Boeri 2003; Holmes 2009, 58–59).

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Gabriella Arrigoni gabriella.arrigoni@newcastle.ac.uk

DIGITAL CREATIVITY, 2016VOL. 27, NO. 2, 99–112http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2016.1188119

The aim of this article is to contribute to thedebate concerning the dissemination and legiti-mation of knowledge in artistic research, with aparticular concern for artistic practices thatshare with design the use of prototyping. Sincethe discussion around epistemological issuesin RtD has already produced significant out-comes, it is argued that looking both at thenotion of prototype and at literature on knowl-edge issues in RtD can provide relevant insightin the intricate discussion on artistic research.

The article starts reviewing the literature onthe topic emphasising how the dominant visionand supporting arguments for artistic researchstill assign a reductive and risky conceptualis-ation to knowledge generated through artisticpractice. This tends to be described in termsof subjectivity, locality, affectivity and lack oftransferability. The article challenges these pos-itions by bringing the attention to artistic proto-types which constitute one of the most commonoutcomes in technologically engaged artisticresearch (Arrigoni and Schofield 2015). Afocus on prototypes can enrich the discussionby engendering a reconsideration of the nature,communicability and applicability of the contri-butions to knowledge offered by artisticresearch. A set of examples is introduced toillustrate why its outcomes can be described asprototypes, and the subsequent implications inrelating them to issues of knowledge productionand dissemination.

A further preliminary remark interests thedenomination itself of artistic research, chosenhere among several terms used to address artis-tic practice in research, such as practice-basedresearch, practice-led research or practice asresearch. Differently from these terms, artisticresearch does not primarily refer to academicprogrammes but can also address other researchsettings, and explicitly containing the word‘artistic’ establishes a more specific terrain ofaction. The working definition of artisticresearch adopted here concerns a process thatpositions art practice as simultaneously meth-odology and outcome of the research (in line

with Coessens, Crispin, and Douglas 2009;Borgdorff 2011). It excludes approaches adopt-ing art practice as a method to conduct researchin other disciplinary fields (for instance soci-ology) (McNiff 1998; Bresler 2006; Leavy2009). Nevertheless, the distinction betweenart practice and art practice-as-research consti-tutes another fuzzy area, except when artistspursue their practice formally as part of aca-demic research projects, or for a research lab.Outside these environments, it is difficult toidentify what research is and under what cir-cumstances artists can be considered research-ers. Often, claims of conducting researchsimply refer to process-oriented practices, notnecessarily grounded in sound methodologiesand engagement in articulation and dissemina-tion of knowledge. A further aim of the paper istherefore to outline, through the examples pro-vided, different ways of behaving as researcherfor artists, besides their integration in officialresearch environments.

Different kinds of knowledge

As an emerging tendency in the research environ-ment, creative practice-based approaches haveundergone a struggle for their own affirmationalongside more established methodologies. Itsproponents engaged in a number of publicationsto demonstrate their validity against traditionalacademic standards for knowledge production,by advocating autonomous criteria for definingresearch and recognising the status of artisticresearch alongside more scientifically basedcanons.

Several articulations of artistic research arebased on the idea that the creative processalways, implicitly, involves some kind ofresearch activity and therefore it should beregarded as a tautology (Carter 2004, 7; Coes-sens, Crispin, and Douglas 2009, 1). Thisassumption is in conflict with more specificnotions of research, intended as transferableand capable of generating demonstrable andoriginal contributions to society and knowledge

100 G. ARRIGONI

and structured around explicit research ques-tions, methods, ways of dissemination(AHRC 2008, 1). Simply erasing any distinctionbetween research as commonly present in thecreative work, and research as intended inidentifiable sites of knowledge production isclearly not helpful and there is an urge to findcriteria to distinguish ‘art practice in itselffrom art practice as research’ (Borgdorff2006, 3).

More constructive approaches to validatePbR attempted to identify its specificities onthe basis of accomplished practice-basedresearch projects. Steven Scrivener draws onhis own experience as PhD supervisor to estab-lish a fundamental distinction between ‘pro-blem-solving research’ and ‘creative-production research’, both producing artefactsduring the process, but responding to differentnorms and requirements. In ‘problem-solvingresearch’, usually centred on technological ordesign issues, artefacts are only examples,while the knowledge produced can beabstracted from its physical manifestation andapplied to other domains. Artefacts have amore prominent role in ‘creative-productionresearch’, where they are valued as uniqueobjects of experience and the main outcome ofthe research. The knowledge emerged fromthese projects is not easily transferable andshould be disseminated by referring to culturalissues (Scrivener 2000). One of the mostdebated issues in artistic research concernswhether or not the artwork can embody aform of knowledge. Scrivener’s position in thiscase is that the multiplicity and inconsistencyof interpretation surrounding artworks wouldprevent them to convey arguments and justifysuch knowledge (Scrivener 2000). His conclus-ive suggestion is therefore for artistic researchto focus on defining more specific goals andabandon the idea that artworks can be formsof knowledge. This argument however is flawedby the fact of reducing knowledge to the mean-ing of the artefact, that in the case of the visualarts equates with many possible interpretations.

My view is instead that artworks can generateand communicate forms of knowledge whichare distinct from their own meanings, butrelated to their making process, their impacton the public, or other issues that will be illus-trated in the second part of this article.

Other perspectives propose new dynamicand non-discursive definitions of knowledge,understood as action or experience, ratherthan a static object (Sutherland and Acord2006; Eisner 2008), with a preference for theterm ‘knowing’ (Bentley and Dewey 1949) toemphasise its evolving nature. To support thisconceptualisation, many authors refer to theideas of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1967) orreflection in action (Schön 1983). Polanyiaddressed forms of knowledge difficult to trans-late into verbal communication, and only trans-ferable through practice, contact andinteraction. His theories are invoked to disman-tle the belief that knowledge can only be articu-lated in propositional or logical terms(Niedderer 2007; Rust 2007; Eisner 2008, 5) oras something objective and impersonal (Suther-land and Acord 2006, 126; Coessens, Crispin,and Douglas 2009, 45). The problem of verballyarticulating the contributions of artisticresearch is a recurrent one. Eisner draws onLanger’s philosophical investigation of art (Lan-ger 1957) to argue for the incompatibilitybetween artistic forms, intended as correlativesof feelings, and discourse (Eisner 2008, 7). Theassociation between art practice and feelings,emotional or affective states has a long-standingtradition associated with the modern separationbetween science and the humanities. The pro-minence of logical reasoning and empiricalscientific method established after the Enlight-enment as the only valuable way of producingknowledge contributed to banish the arts toancillary positions in society (Sullivan 2005,chap. 2). Proponents of artistic research havetried to reverse this paradigm and to forgealternative notions of knowledge accountingfor subjectivity and feelings. Several publi-cations validate knowledge grounded in artistic

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 101

practice as subjective, situated, evocative andempathic (Sutherland and Acord 2006; Knowlesand Cole 2007; Barrett and Bolt 2010). Thisapproach, however, risks to maintain artisticresearch in a ghetto, possibly granted an officialrole (and funding) within a research institution,but still fundamentally apart from other fields ofresearch. It is argued here that an accomplishedlegitimisation of artistic research should findstronger points of connections and adaptationswith established notions of research and cannotbe reduced to the idea of ineffable, individualexperiences.

Those considering the capability of the arte-fact to embody knowledge also tend to empha-sise its non-verbal dimension. Indeed, theterms of the dispute vary but centre aroundthe contested autonomy of an object in com-municating the advancements in research byitself, without the aid of textual and contextualdocumentation (see for instance Biggs 2003;Pakes 2004). Borgdorff associates the idea ofembodiment with that of non-discursive, situ-ated knowledge (2011). The scholar definesartistic research as ‘the articulation of un-reflective, non-conceptual content enclosed inaesthetic experiences, enacted in creative prac-tice and embodied in artistic products’ (Borg-dorff 2011, 59). The knowledge generated byartistic research results substantially differentfrom something that can be defined andpassed on. Rather it is described as a stimulus,an invite to reflection and a ‘deliberate articu-lation of unfinished thinking’ directed at ‘anot-yet-knowing’ or ‘an outlook on what itmight be’ (Borgdorff 2011, 61). This positionis convincing and assigns a generative role toartistic research; however, it does not take itvery far from what art does anyway, disregard-ing of its role in research. Again, the examplesprovided in the second part of this articledemonstrate that in an artwork conceptualand non-conceptual issues; argumentativeand ineffable aspects coexist. We suggest thatthe material outcomes of artistic research willalways contain both an explicit contribution

to knowledge, which will be disseminatedthrough academic channels, and an undefined,experiential dimension, that will be prioritisedin other channels of dissemination such asexhibition or public events.

Knowledge in RtD

The Introduction of the article hinted to paralleldebates around the nature of knowledge in thecontext of RtD. The literature in this casetends to focus not so much on definitions ofknowledge, but rather on what it is possible todo with knowledge generated in RtD.

Tacit knowledge is also assigned a specialplace in design research, and interpreted ascritical for its integration within traditionalresearch regulations and criteria (Niedderer2007). Nevertheless, a stronger argument isadvanced around the possibility to articulatetacit knowledge and make it explicit. Ken Fried-man suggests the role of reflection in this pro-cess, and points out how design knowledgeresults from the interplay between experience,reflection, inquiry and theorisation (Friedman2000). More recently, Gaver and Bowers haveproposed, in different papers (Bowers 2012;Gaver 2012), a way of articulating the knowl-edge embodied in RtD artefacts which is com-municable but does not try to comply withpre-existing standards and protocols ofresearch. Instead, it is argued that RtD can becommunicated through annotated portfoliosoffering ‘theories that are provisional, contin-gent, and aspirational’ (Gaver 2012, 938).Annotations refer to the textual account associ-ated to design objects in RtD: ‘they point to fea-tures of artefacts of interest and connect thosefeatures to matters of further concern’ (Bowers2012). Artefacts are seen as the primaryresearch output, rather than mere examples.Annotations are not overarching verifiable the-ories but ways of articulating theoretical contri-butions, and can perform some of the functionsof theory in supporting conceptual develop-ment and providing guidelines for action. In

102 G. ARRIGONI

other words, they create balance and reciprocitybetween the particular (the artefact) and thegeneralisable (Gaver 2012). Indeed, annotatedportfolios enable comparison and have an out-ward-looking perspective, without losing theirmutual relationship with the artefact (Bowers2012). Another recurrent element in the litera-ture addresses the future-oriented character ofRtD (Zimmerman, Stolterman, and Forlizzi2010, 310), generative and concerned in ‘creat-ing what might be’ (Gaver 2012, 940). Whatemerges from RtD is a theory of action, offeringguidance and suggestions for new methods ormaterials for design, indicating preferred statesfor the future and exploring forward thinkingthrough designed prototypes (Zimmerman,Stolterman, and Forlizzi 2010).

A similar epistemological problem thenreceived overall divergent responses in the artsand design. The arts are seeking completeautonomy from existing research standards,and defend the idea of conducting researcheven without producing communicable contri-butions, but only implicit, localised and particu-lar ones. By contrast, design research isdeveloping a more balanced position, based onthe following points:

. Tacit knowledge can be articulated and madeexplicit.

. Artefacts embody contingent forms of knowl-edge that can be put in relation to other arte-facts and provide theoretical guidance(annotations).

. RtD knowledge tends to be operational andfuture-oriented.

The hypothesis formulated here is that theseindications can be applied to artistic researchtoo, especially when engaging with technologythrough creative prototypes. The situated andlocalised character of knowledge produced inartistic research, for instance, could be orientedtoward more outward-looking perspectives,highlighting features and contingencies thatenable discourse, comparison, partial and

contingent theoretical inquiries. Artistic proto-types might also be able to disclose new fields,techniques, approaches, materials or mediumsuseful to other practitioners. artistic researchcan find a place that despite its non-conformityto traditional scientific standards maintainsbasic requirements for research to be commu-nicable and generative of further work.

Prototypes in artistic research

This review has pointed to the existence, in cur-rent debates, of different notions of knowledgein association to artistic artefacts, and high-lighted the limitations implicit in some ofthese approaches. One of their common traitsrefers to an idea of provisionality and contin-gency: rather than a static object, knowledgeemerges as action, something in flux, in con-stant evolution. This can simultaneously be itsstrength and its weakness. Another commontrait is the idea that in artistic research knowl-edge is embodied in artefacts capable of deliver-ing arguments in non-discursive ways. Theseconsiderations are especially meaningful whenone recognises how frequently the outcome oftechnologically engaged PbR is described (ordescribable) as prototypes, part of a cyclical tra-jectory of experiment and evaluation (Rust2007; Edmonds and Candy 2010; Winter andBrabazon 2010; Turnbull and Connell 2011).Without denying the experiential and subjectivenature of artworks, this article brings the focuson artistic prototypes to support the idea thatartistic research can produce identifiable andtransferable contributions. The first step inthis direction is to analyse a set of exemplaryartistic prototypes in relations to their researchaims, findings and methodologies.

Neurotic Armageddon Indicator

The Neurotic Armageddon Indicator (NAI,2013) by Tom Schofield visualises the Dooms-day Clock, a symbolic clock maintained by theBulletin of Atomic Scientists to raise awareness

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 103

about the risks posed by nuclear weapons. Theclock, hosted on the website of the bulletin,indicates the proximity to holocaust expressedin minutes to midnight. The NAI scrapes thecontent of the home page as fast as possibleand updates in real time an eighties lookingwall-mounted LED display (Figure 1). Sincethe Doomsday Clock is actually only very rarelyupdated, the programme ends up performing apsychotic, redundant act of verification. Scho-field built the NAI during his practice-basedPhD at Culture Lab, while investigating differ-ent ways of thinking about computational mate-riality. With a background in Fine Arts, heconsiders himself an artist and most of its cre-ations, including the NAI, as artworks (Scho-field, personal communication, March 28,2014). His motivations for making an artefactas part of his research endeavour lie in the beliefthat building can be a way to analyse, breakapart and re-arrange the actions and functional-ities performed by a given device (in this casethe symbolic clock), in order to make specificmaterial relationships more readable andconvincing.

For instance, the NAI emphasises aninherent fragility to the system composing theonline Doomsday clock. According to Schofield,it relies on ‘the expectation from web contentprovider that clients will conform to particularrules’ (Schofield 2015, 161). By scraping theweb content frantically, the piece subverts

such rules and finds in fragility a breakthroughto creative exploitation. Another point consistsin the way the project investigates the materialbasis for liveness in visualisation, usually onlyaddressed for its potential in engaging audi-ences. By explicitly visualising with a flashinglight the time taken by the scraped data to bedownloaded, the NAI performs a parody of live-ness. The device in fact goes through exactly thesame technological processes (such as HTTPrequests, data processing) as would many livedata visualisations based on remote data. How-ever, by relying on a data source which willalmost never change, its performative functionis affected, becoming a kind of meta-commen-tary on liveness itself (Schofield 2015).

These two points illustrate how making isused in the NAI as a rhetorical tool to demon-strate an argument. The work contributes tothe broader ensemble of the thesis in identifyinga number of facets of materiality. This isintended to generate value for other designersand makers, offering them not exhaustive the-ories but annotations and guiding principlesto approach specific materials or finding waysof starting off a project (Schofield 2014). Theknowledge resulting from this research processcan be considered simultaneously embodied inthe artefact, but also abstractable and transfer-able (for instance by means of written publi-cations) to other situations, instructive for acommunity of practitioners.

Aeromodeller2

The Aeromodeller2 (Figure 2) explores thedesign for a zero-emission hydrogen-based air-ship that will never need to land to re-fuel,because it regenerates hydrogen from the windand rain it encounters in a perfect autonomouscycle (Standaert 2014). Its creator, Lieven Stan-daert, teaches and conducts research at the VrijeUniversiteit (Brussels), and collaborates withTimelab, a Ghent-based fablab. His airship pro-ject is run independently from these insti-tutions, but there are two main reasons to

Figure 1. Tom Schofield, Neurotic Armageddon Indi-cator (source: Schofield 2013).

104 G. ARRIGONI

identify it as research. The first one is its exper-imental approach, based on constant testing,failures and adjustments. The second one isthe way he defines it as a manifesto fordesigner-driven innovation (Standaert 2014).The project is an attempt to establish an alterna-tive approach to R&D, not driven by marketingand business plans, but focused on art as amethodology leading to slow but visionaryresults (Standaert 2011). This is made possibleby a tinkering approach; a process based onpractical building endeavours, and on the publicdisplay of work-in-progress, models and proto-types, rather than achieved final result. The pro-ject advances by making attempts, gatheringknowledge on what is feasible or achievable bytrying it out with hands-on experiments:

In 2007 I did a series of combustion tests on10m3 hydrogen balloons to see if you coulddevelop a balloon system to use hydrogensafely. I realised nobody had actually donethose kind of experiments in a serious way,as the idea was completely marginalized bythe old Hindenburg disaster. In 2009 I got tothe point where I believed I could convin-cingly argue this concept was feasible, so I

published it in a solo exhibition in order todo so. (Standaert 2011)

This method is paradoxically enhanced byaddressing the project as art and disseminatingit through artistic channels. Standaert explainshow showing his experiments and prototypesin art centres allowed him to present them reallyas work-in-progress, facilitating ‘discussionabout research as a progressive series of exper-iments and tests through trial and error’ (Stan-daert 2010). Furthermore, developing thedesign as an artistic endeavour reinforced theradical, non-compromising nature of the pro-ject. The hydrogen cycle at the basis of the Aero-modeller2 is grounded in feasible technologicalpatterns, but might never become of particularuse because the airship will be too slow toreplace other means of transport and willrequire rest to recharge itself. The point indeedis not about problem-solving and finding aneffective solution in terms of energy sustainabil-ity. Rather, by telling a story on sustainability(Standaert 2011), the artist analyses and docu-ment a process and a set of technological

Figure 2. Lieven Standaert, Aeromodeller 2, 9 meter model at Verbeke Foundation (source: Vervoort 2010).

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 105

possibilities, productively contributing to majorcontemporary issues.

The Aeromodeller2 differs from standardresearch practices because it does not use aca-demic channels of dissemination, and becauseof its expanded and undefined timescale. Theresearch is however thoroughly documentedthrough text and visual materials accountingfor experiments, concept posters and exhibi-tions. Furthermore, it is possible to identify aclear methodology based on test, experiments

and tinkering. Finally, even if not yet working,the airship is grounded in scientific knowledgeand in previous technological endeavours(hydrogen car for instance already exist, butthey are not sustainable until a method will befound to allow them to autonomously generatetheir fuel. Something that Standaert is envision-ing for his airship). Standaert refers to the Aero-modeller2 as a research project, but he does notframe it in terms of contribution to knowledge.It is possible however to suggest how the valueof the project might be articulated. First of all,although framed as a visionary prototype, theairship can be seen as contributing to techno-logical innovation. Furthermore, it proposes aresearch methodology based on the artistic con-text and its capacity of integrating work-in-pro-gress. Finally, it provides evidences in favour ofan emerging design and engineering area ofinvestigation focused on energy sustainability.

Urban Immune System Research

The Urban Immune System Research com-prises a series of speculative prototypes1

Figure 3. The Institute for Boundary Interactions, TownCrier.

Figure 4. The Institute for Boundary Interactions, Sticky Data display.

106 G. ARRIGONI

introducing new forms of symbiosis betweenthe city, intended as a living organism, andits human and non-human inhabitants. Forinstance, one of the devices includes backpackmounted megaphones shouting geo-locatedtweets (Figure 3); another one is a glove tryingto turn into haptic feelings the experience ofwalking through a cloud of data (Figure 4).Behind the project is the Institute for Bound-ary Interaction (IBI), a collective of artists,designers, architects, technologists and produ-cers interested ‘in conducting practice leadresearch into the complex relationshipsbetween people, places and things’ (Institutefor Boundary Interactions 2010). Both thetitle of the project and the name of the collec-tive allude to institutional identities andresearch practices. The statement presentedby the IBI on its website explicitly places itswork in relation to ‘recent scientific, techno-logical and cultural developments in order toconduct practice-based research through amix of public art and critically engaged design’(Institute for Boundary Interactions 2010). Inmany ways, their work can be assimilated tocritical design, creating prototypes to provokedebate and explore the socio-political impli-cations of innovation.

The IBI website is rich of texts addressingvarious parts of the project, and the blog postsare articulated into three main categories: lab,news and research. This further characterisesthe textual materials as integral part of a prac-tice-based process, rather than mere communi-cation and promotion tool. The introductorytext for UISR for instance contains questionsthat might be regarded as typical research ques-tions in the academic fashion:

How might we design more human technol-ogy? Can we design technologies thatperform symbiosis between the human andenvironment?What does it mean to experience located datain the same way that you would with realarchitectural space? How would we build,manipulate and demolish it?

What if you could sense the social character-istics of a city as you would temperature, orair quality? (Interactions 2011)

These texts follow a logical, linear structurethat outlines the context and problemsaddressed by the project; introduces referencesand quotes relevant author; analyses how theinitial idea has been developed through practice;provides reflection and discussion; andadvances indications on action to be takennext. One of these texts, for instance, providesan essential scientific description of the func-tioning of the human immune system, andmakes suggestions on how this can be appliedto the city. The hypothesis formulated imaginesthat cities, similar to the human body, couldbecome immune to foreign entities if exposedto them under controlled situations. Byaggregating texts and images, the IBI’s websiteworks as both a research and documentationplatform.

IBI’s methodology comprises user tests, per-formance and public engagement as a way toapply and evaluate the prototypes produced inresponse to the initial questions. These devicesare clearly presented not as independent art-works but as means to develop a research pro-cess and gain a better understanding of theecology created by technologically enhancedhumans and cities. The feedback generated bytesting them in the urban environment is infact as important as making and presentingthem to the public. Ultimately, systems andmodes of research are adopted to build a specificartistic identity.

The Meat Licence Proposal

The Meat Licence Proposal by John O’Sheaengages with the ethical dilemmas of eatingmeat by suggesting the introduction of a com-pulsory licence that would require citizens will-ing to buy meat to actually engage in killing ananimal. Besides engaging directly in the law-making process, O’Shea devises a number of

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 107

speculative products to support the proposalwith a market-oriented strategy: a football ballgrown from living cells (Pigs Bladder Football)(Figure 5) and a black pudding made usingblood from a living pig (Black Market Pudding)(Figure 6).

In my perspective, both the licence itself andthe products can be intended as prototypes: theyare artefacts working as proposals for ahypothetical scenario characterised by theestablishment of different values surroundingour relationship with the idea of killing animals.They are early versions of something that mightbecome serialised and part of the everyday. Andwhereas the Football and the Pudding demon-strate the practical feasibility of specific kindsof production, the licence tries to replicate theprocess of law-making presenting itself asdraft that comply with the structure andlanguages of existing laws.

Three main points allow me to read this pro-ject as research: integration with research insti-tutions; collection of feedback from potentialusers; and production of artefacts as proof-of-concept. The artist collaborated with the LawSchool at Newcastle University to gain a betterunderstanding of the law-making process, andin particular of how ‘food producers, supermar-kets and other large corporations actually relateto the legal and democratic process of law-mak-ing around food’ (O’Shea 2012). The demo-cratic and activist approach adopted in the

first phase of the project was bases on the beliefthat ‘a new law could be developed in a publicand transparent way, by citizens themselves, ina similar way to open-source developmentmodels which operate within software cul-ture’(O’Shea 2012). The research conductedat the Law School however showed how theusual pattern for the introduction of a newlaw works in a very different way. Laws arenot constructed on the basis of existing, sharedvalued, but ‘in reaction to particular productsand trends which emerge and are successfulwithin the free market’ (O’Shea 2012).

Subsequently, O’Shea was an artist in resi-dence at the University of Liverpool’s ClinicalEngineering Unit where he collaborated withProfessor John Hunt to harvest animal tissuefor the Pigs Bladder Football. The six monthsresidency was funded by the Wellcome Trust,a charity supporting public engagement andapplication of research in the areas of humanand animal health. The process replicates thetechniques adopted to create artificial humanorgans, and consisted in culturing stem cellscollected from pigs’ bladders and designingand 3D printing a ball-shaped scaffold onwhich the cell would grow.

The Pigs Bladder Football and the Black Mar-ket Pudding are both intended as proof of con-cepts materialising hypotheses that describehow the food market could be in a differentvalue system based on more ethically conscious

Figure 5. John O’Shea, Pigs Bladder Football (credits:O’Shea 2012).

Figure 6. John O’Shea, Black Market Pudding (credits:O’Shea 2012).

108 G. ARRIGONI

products. Their function is to populate a scen-ario and turning it into something concrete.Both in fact guarantee that no animals are killedto produce them, and ensure a fair deal forfarmers, animals and consumers. They are con-ceptual objects, but their role in the researchprocess is strongly related to their materialityand the material network of relationships inwhich they are created. They are effective pre-cisely because they really are made from livingpigs’ blood and organic waste cells.

O’Shea methodology also includes users’feedback. Part of the installation of The MeatLicence Proposal in an exhibition in TheHague included audio recordings of theresponses given by passers-by in Manchesterasked to express their opinion on the new law.These fragments are presented within a digitalinterface that enable the viewer to cross refer-ence them and make connections with actuallegal documents that support, or sometimescontradict claims made by people in theiranswers. This highlights contradictions in thepublic perception of the law, freedom and rights(Haag 2012).

Discussion

The four projects presented exemplify differentways in which artists conduct research by mak-ing prototypes. Only the NAI has been devel-oped in an academic institution and presentedalongside a doctoral thesis that explicitly out-lines its role and contributions to knowledge.The Aeromodeller2 is framed as researchbecause of its methodology based on exper-imentation and hands-on testing; because itreplicates patterns of R&D, but dilating thembeyond budget and time constraints; andbecause it is grounded in existing technologicalresearch. UISR presents itself as a PbR processand abandon artistic stereotypes by adoptingan institutional profile. Its prototypes are notproduced as independent artworks but asresearch tools used to collect people feedbackthrough hybrid performance studies. The texts

populating the project website are structuredalongside research questions, problem framingand contextualisation, formulation of hypoth-eses and description of the development stages.The Meat Licence Proposal is grounded in asolid methodology that relates public’s feedbackwith a systematic analysis of legal documents;adopts prototypes as proofs of concept; and itdevelops through close collaboration with aca-demic departments.

These examples suggest a number ofapproaches to identify artistic research whentaking place outside formal research insti-tutions. To pin them down more clearly, theycould be summarised as follow:

. Presence of a methodological framework

. Collection of feedback / structuring throughstudies or experiments

. Presence of explicit research questions andrecord of development stages

. Grounding hypotheses and progress in exist-ing research patterns

. Collaboration with research institutions

While still open to (and in need of) opposingarguments, these tentative criteria can mark aninitial step toward more articulated ways todefine and appreciate artistic research. Similarremarks might be valid for what concerns theways these projects epitomise typologies ofknowledge emerging from artistic researchand their transferability. Again, a brief recapitu-lation can be useful. The NAI materialises andemphasises specific features of materiality in atechnological artefact, which can be generalisedto describe recurrent manifestations of materi-ality. Awareness of these features offers practicalguidance to makers and designers and cantherefore be considered as knowledge improv-ing design practice. In the Aeromodeller2,there is an interesting overlapping between thereasons it can be regarded as research, and itscontributions to knowledge. Its methodologyis in fact an innovative one, and demonstratesthe potential of combining experimentation

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 109

with artistic approaches and disseminationstrategies; additionally, the airship itself rep-resents a technological advancement, suggestingnew areas of investigations around sustainableenergy. UISR too identifies new directions forinteraction design and ubiquitous computingin the urban environment. The research alsogenerates insight on sociological issues and theimplications of innovation on urban life.Finally, The Meat Licence Proposal discloseshow the legal system relates to products andthe market. Its main outcome results howeverin public engagement and reflection, and it isnot easy to clearly identify ‘new’ knowledgegenerated according to traditional academicstandards. Nevertheless, the project has beenincluded in the paper especially to articulate amore nuanced discourse around the topic, anddemonstrate how strong research method-ologies may or may not lead to contributionsto knowledge. Here again it is possible toabstract what is generalisable in a provisionallist of purposes and typologies of knowledgeemerging from artistic research:

. Introduction of new methods andmethodologies

. Practical guidance for artists, designers andmakers

. Technological advancement/innovation

. Introduction of new areas of exploration orresearch

. Sociological or psychological insight / under-standing of people’s relationship to art ortechnology

Conclusion

The article opposes the prevailing conceptualis-ation of knowledge (subjective, ineffable andnon-transferable) developed by proponents ofartistic research. Instead, it suggests a moreoperational and forward-looking one elaboratedby addressing parallel debates in the field of RtDand analysing a set of examples of artistic

research whose main outcomes are creative pro-totypes. The result is a notion of knowledgewhich is indeed context-sensitive but also suit-able to be communicated verbally or textually,and to generate further action. Being a knowl-edge emerging from practice it is naturally prac-tice-oriented, and not enclosed in the realm offeelings and individual meanings as would hap-pen with non-prototypical artefacts. The articlealso contrasts the view that all artistic endea-vours could be seen as research, but acknowl-edges that artistic research can indeed takeplace outside official research environmentstoo. To contribute to the related demarcationissue, it is suggested how the emergent concep-tualisation of knowledge advanced here alsoindicate a series of factors to look for to identifyartistic research conducted independently fromresearch institutions. A final consideration con-cerns prototyping, which is at the basis of anoverlapping between art and design, and intro-duces a tendency toward iteration in art making(particularly productive for research purposes).With artistic prototypes, we should thereforeget used to abandon the commonplace associ-ation between artwork and uniqueness, andaccept instead its insertion in more complexlifecycles and fields of action (one of thosebeing indeed research).

Note

1. Devices proposed as a response to hypotheti-cal future or alternative contexts, as in DesignFiction or Critical Design.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by theauthor.

Funding information

This research was undertaken as part of the AHRC-funded CDA ‘Living Laboratories: Enhancing Audi-ence Engagement through Making and CuratingDigital Art’.

110 G. ARRIGONI

Note on contributor

Gabriella Arrigoni is AHRC-funded PhD candidate inDigital Media at Culture Lab (Newcastle University)where she is researching the notion of artistic proto-type and exploring the relationship between art prac-tice and labs. Former editor in chief on UnDo.net,the first Italian network for contemporary art, shehas published articles and essays on a number ofmagazines, catalogues and web-platforms. She hascurated exhibitions, workshops and talks in galleriesand not-for-profit spaces with a special focus on topicssuch as science, science-fiction and co-creation. Herresearch has been featured internationally in a numberof conferences on new media art, design and heritage.

References

AHRC. 2008. “The Arts and Humanities ResearchCouncil’s Knowledge Transfer Strategy 2008–2011.” http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/publications/documents/knowledge-transfer-strategy-2008-2011.pdf.

Arrigoni, Gabriella, and Tom Schofield. 2015. “Under-standing Artistic Prototypes Between Activism andResearch.” Paper presented at XCOAX, Glasgow,25–26 June.

Barrett, Estelle, and Barbara Bolt, eds. 2010. Practiceas Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry.London: I.B. Tauris.

Bentley, Arthur, and John Dewey. 1949. Knowingand the Known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Biggs, Michael. 2003. “The Role of ‘the Work’ inResearch.” Paper presented at PARIP NationalConference.

Borgdorff, Henk. 2006. The Debate on Research inthe Arts. Bergen: National Academy of the Arts.

Borgdorff, Henk. 2011. “The Production of Know-ledge in Artistic Research.” In The RoutledgeCompanion to Research in the Arts, edited byMichael Biggs and Henrik Karlsson, 44–63.London: Routledge.

Bowers, John. 2012. “The Logic of AnnotatedPortfolios: Communicating the Value of ‘Researchthrough Design.’” In Proceedings of the DesigningInteractive Systems Conference. New York: ACM.

Bresler, Liora. 2006. “Toward Connectedness: Aesthetic-ally Based Research.” Studies in Art Education 48 (1):52–69.

Carter, Paul. 2004. Material Thinking: The Theoryand Practice of Creative Research. Melbourne:Melbourne University Press.

Coessens, Kathleen, Darla Crispin, and AnneDouglas. 2009. The Artistic Turn: A Manifesto.Leuven: Leuven University Press.

ColesAlex. 2007. Design and Art. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

Dunne, Anthony. 2008. Hertzian Tales: ElectronicProducts, Aesthetic Experience, and CriticalDesign. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Edmonds, Ernest, and Linda Candy. 2010. “RelatingTheory, Practice and Evaluation in PractitionerResearch.” Leonardo 43 (5): 470–76.

Eisner, Elliott. 2008. “Art and Knowledge.” InHandbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research, edi-ted by J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole, 3–12.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friedman, Ken. 2000. “Creating Design Knowledge:From Research into Practice.” In IDATER 2000Conference. Loughborough University,Loughborough.

Gaver, William. 2012. “What Should We Expectfrom Research through Design?” In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems. ACM, Austin.

Haag, Stroom Den. 2012. “Food Forward: JohnO’Shea.” Stroom Den Haag. http://www.stroom.nl/paginas/pagina.php?pa_id=137273.

Hannula, Mika, Juha Suoranta, and Tere Vadén, eds.2005. Artistic Research: Theories, Methods andPractices. Helsinki: Academy of Fine Arts.

Holmes, Brian. 2009. “Extradisciplinary Investigations:Towards a New Critique of Institutions.” In Artand Contemporary Critical Practice: ReinventingInstitutional Critique. London: MayFlyBooks.

Institute for Boundary Interactions. 2010. About.Institute for Boundary Interactions. http://boundaryinteractions.org/about.

Interactions, Institute for Boundary. 2011. UrbanImmune System Research. Institute for BoundaryInteractions. http://boundaryinteractions.org/projects/urban-immune-system-research.

Knowles, J. G., and A. L. Cole, eds. 2007. Handbookof the Arts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives,Methodologies, Examples, and Issues. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Langer, Susanne Katherina Knauth. 1957. Problemsof Art: Ten Philosophical Lectures. New York:Scribner.

Leavy, Patricia. 2009. Method Meets Art: Arts-basedResearch Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Lupo, Eleonora. 2011. “Design, Arts and ‘Aestheticsof Innovation.’” Strategic Design ResearchJournal 4 (2): 40–53.

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 111

McNiff, Shaun. 1998. Art-based Research. London:Jessica Kingsley.

Moderna Museet. 2000. “What If: Art on the Vergeof Architecture and Design.” Moderna Museet.http://www.modernamuseet.se/en/Stockholm/Exhibitions/2000/What-if/.

Niedderer, Kristina. 2007. “Mapping the Meaning ofKnowledge in Design Research.” Design ResearchQuarterly 2 (2): 4–13.

Obrist, Hans-Ulrich, Vivian Rehberg, and StefanoBoeri. 2003. “Moving Interventions: Curating atLarge.” Journal of Visual Culture 2 (2): 147–60.

O’Shea, John. 2012. “The Meat Licence Proposal,Interview with John O’Shea.” WeMakeMoneyNotArt. http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2012/01/meat-licence-proposal.php#.

Pakes, Anna. 2004. “Art as Action or Art as Object?The Embodiment of Knowledge in Practice asResearch.” Working Papers in Art and Design 3(5). http://www.herts.ac.uk/research/ssahri/research-areas/art-design/research-into-practice-group/production/working-papers-in-art-and-design-journal.

Polanyi, Michael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension.London: Routledge.

Rust,Chris. 2007. “UnstatedContributions:HowArtisticInquiry Can Inform Interdisciplinary Research.”International Journal of Design 1 (3): 69–76.

Schofield, Tom. 2015. “Materiality and Making inExperiential Ecologies.” PhD diss., NewcastleUniversity.

Schön, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner:How Professionals Think in Action. New York:Basic Books.

Scrivener, Steven. 2000. “Reflection in and on Actionand Practice in Creative-Production Doctoral

Projects in Art and Design.” Working Papers inArt and Design 1. http://www.herts.ac.uk/research/ssahri/research-areas/art-design/research-into-practice-group/production/working-papers-in-art-and-design-journal.

Standaert, Lieven. 2010. “9-MeterModel:Construction.”Aeromodeller2.http://aeromodeller2.hylas.be/?p=264.

Standaert, Lieven. 2011. “Aeromodeller2.” WeMakeMoneyNotArt, July. http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2011/07/aeromodeller2.php#.VGXfj_msVhc.

Standaert, Lieven. 2014. “Aeromodeller2 About.”Aeromodeller2. Accessed November 13. http://aeromodeller2.hylas.be/?page_id=49.

Sullivan, Graeme. 2005. Art Practice as Research:Inquiry in Visual Arts. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Sutherland, Ian, and Sophia Krzys Acord. 2006.“Thinking with Art : From Situated Knowledgeto Experiential Knowing.” Journal of Visual ArtPractice 6 (2): 125–40.

Turnbull, Deborah, and Matthew Connell. 2011.“Prototyping Places: The Museum.” InInteracting: Art, Research and the CreativePractitioner, edited by Ernest Edmonds andLinda Candy, 79–93. Oxford: Libri Publishing.

Winter, Mick, and T. Brabazon. 2010, January. “TheIntertwining of Researcher, Practice and Artifactin Practice-Based Research.” Practicing MediaResearch 1–17. Masters diss., University of Brighton.

Zimmerman, John, Erik Stolterman, and JodiForlizzi. 2010. “An Analysis and Critique ofResearch through Design: Towards aFormalization of a Research Approach.” InProceedings of the 8th ACM Conference onDesigning Interactive Systems, 310–319. ACM.

112 G. ARRIGONI