Research Catalogue

This is an edited version of the peer review comment, which the author has used as an aid when finalising their exposition:

The exposition fits the theme of the issue well and responds to the questions raised in the call for proposals. This critical enquiry grows out of and provides a focused analysis of a long-term experimental artistic practice committed to the conservation and distribution of plant seeds in response to the urgency of accelerating biodiversity loss. The exposition is not explicitly positioned in relation to the wider “vegetal turn” in the arts, yet it offers a singular perspective into the related problematics.

The exposition presents a focused analysis of the long-term development of an artistic enquiry with a deepening engagement with plant seeds and biodiversity. It narrates engagingly and identifies in a clear argument the different moments of artistic experimentation in differing contexts that have redirected and further critically situated the evolving practice with cultivation - from sculptural form to performative community engagement and/or community building with seeds. The discussion of context-/site-specificity of performative and collective actions, and the potentiality of art as an active participant in or even as a driver of change, are very timely and interestingly contextualized in relation to the artistic practice in question, while its argument resonates with acutely felt concerns in the field of art and ecology.

The exposition is certainly of interest as artistic research: it maps out a clearly articulated and analyzed practice-based research trajectory and its development through a number of experiments and outcomes. It does not reflect solely on the artistic works and the different forms the enquiry has taken in diverse settings - or habitats - but also brings into the analysis the wider socio-political context and its impact on the practice. It poses well formulated and precise research questions as well as presents the practice-based research methodologies and their development in close examination of the artistic outcomes. However, towards the end of the exposition, the focus and clarity of the author’s own voice gives way for the lengthy interviews with curators, which could have been more clearly positioned in relation to the main research argument developed in the article.

The exposition will be of interest for the wider interdisciplinary field of art and ecology, and for research into socio-environmentally engaged art and activist practices.

The exposition poses clear research questions and presents an in-depth discussion of a practice-based research trajectory, while critically reflecting on the methodologies and their evolution in the cases of the artistic works in question. This discussion is contextualized in a wider socio-political framework and, notably, the specific contexts of each case of artistic activity. It is also grounded in theoretical discourses, yet in places it would strengthen the argument to replace or supplement the references to Wikipedia with also other sources. The exposition sheds light into a very interesting, singular artistic practice, which is critically situated and research-based, while drawing together insights and knowledge arising out of this long-term enquiry.

The research argument loses, however, its focus towards the end of the exposition, where the interviews with curators call for further editing and reflection, in order to tie them into the main argument of the proposition: why these curators, how are their views supporting the research here, what aspects of their responses are of particular importance to the core questions of the exposition, etc? A conclusion following this section would furthermore help to clarify the key aspects and findings of the argument.

The design and navigation are clear and support the proposition. The captions/descriptions for the images could be clearer, especially towards the end of the exposition. On the last page, alongside the curators’ interviews, it is unclear which art works the images refer to, why they have been placed on the chosen sites, how are they related to the text, etc. Here it would be important to give some context to the images and their positioning. /--/

In order to strengthen the argument further, the last section of the exposition could be edited more tightly and the interview findings analyzed so as to tie them more fluently to the main argument. Another part of the text that stood out was the lengthy quotation from an earlier interview with the artist/author. This could be slightly rewritten so that it follows the rest of the format and the flow of the argument, while adding a footnote to the original interview it references. A couple of details that do not fully support the argument now: There is a brief reference to educational turn that seems out of place and calls for further discussion - why reference this particular “turn”, how is it relevant to the practice in question and the main argument here, what are the sources used, etc? Why not rather position the practice in relation to other discourses such as on so-called “social turn” or “ecological turn”, or on socially engaged and environmental art practices? Another place where further referencing of sources would strengthen the argument concerns non-human legal persons and consideration of legal cases, where e.g., rivers have gained this status recently. /--/

The exposition presents numerous extremely interesting and important findings, questions and insights arising out of the research-based artistic practice discussed. There is also a lot of scope for exploring some of these further, here or in the future: for example, the notion of performative habitat calls for further exploration on the conditions that nurture this development of collective performance, or how art plays actively part in social change, while itself also transforming in the process in response to the social and ecological urgencies.