Editorial Process: Practices of Phenomenological and Artistic Research

Emma Cocker

Practices of Phenomenological & Artistic Research

This exposition forms part of the Editorial Introduction by Alex Arteaga and Emma Cocker published in the Special Issue 'Practices of Phenomenological and Artistic Research', Phenomenology & Practice, [Vol. 17, No.1, 2022]. The Editorial itself is accessed here.

As with many of the other contributions to this Special Issue, an attempt is made to show the practice itself through an “exposition” on the Research Catalogue. The Editorial article itself takes the form of a research artifact resulting from the activation of a practice. Or rather, it crystallizes an affinity between two language-based artistic research practices presented within this Special Issue: Alex Arteaga’s practice of Exploratory Essay Writing and Emma Cocker’s practice of Conversation-as-Material.

Process

The Editorial article is comprised wholly of transcript material generated through a series of conversations between Arteaga and Cocker. The original conversation transcripts were distilled gradually through a combination of marking and redaction, where the gaps of omitted words are left intact, in turn heightening attention to the agency of both the fragment and of the spacing itself. Within each phase — conversation, transcription, distillation, and presentation — an attempt is made to activate a particular aesthetic or poetic mode of attention, perhaps even a specific phenomenological attitude or disposition.

Phase I: Conversation & Transcription

Arteaga and Cocker engaged in three separate 'rounds' of conversation and transcription which took place between 26—29 March 2022: (1) Conversation: a recorded conversation lasting around 1.5 hours; (2) Transcription: the conversation is transcribed and the transcript material shared before the next conversation. The documents presented in this exposition (Scroll to the right) attempt to show aspects of the process from Phase II onwards — that is, the process of distillation from original transcript towards the Editorial text itself.

Phase II: Distillation (through marking)

* First distillation

All three conversation transcripts were reengaged with by Arteaga and Cocker through a process of marking, where each researcher highlights those sections of the text that felt most resonant. These annotations are compiled/gathered within a single text and colour coded: One colour (green) for one researcher's marked highlights; another colour (blue) for the other researcher's marked highlights. Another colour (red) is used when the same section of text is marked by both researchers. Those parts of the text not highlighted by either researcher are effectively redacted by changing the text to white.

* Second distillation

Initially an attempt was made to further distill the transcript by retaining only that part of the text that both researchers highlighted (ie. only the red colour coded parts of the text). However, through this process the vocative dimension of the original conversation was becoming lost, and so a different approach was evolved.

Phase III: Thematic Organisation

By revisiting the transcript material again a number of thematic foci became discernible: (1) Varieties of affinity between phenomenological and artistic research practices; (2) Common characteristics of phenomenological and artistic research practices; (3) Practices (and the matter of publishing practices). Going back to the first distillation of the conversation transcripts, this material was then reorganized using these three broad thematic foci, alongside allowing for emergent sub-foci. The reorganization of the material retained the original spacing generated through the first phase of redaction.

Phase IV: Distillation through further redaction

Over a period of days, Arteaga and Cocker gradually distilled the transcript material further through a very slow process of redaction of all extraneous content. The two researchers met online together with the shared text visible to each. First, a section of the text was read aloud. Then, each researcher proposed/highlighted sections of text for redaction, awaiting agreement from the other before proceeding further.

Phase V: Presentation

The Editorial article (published in the Special Issue 'Practices of Phenomenological and Artistic Research', Phenomenology & Practice) attempts to remain in fidelity to the process of this shared practice, to the rhythm and unfolding of the original conversation, by retaining the empty spacing where words have been redacted.

Conversation 1 [26 March 2022] Distillation of transcript through marking

1st Distillation

Transcript from Saturday 26 March 2022

Conversation (Part 1)

I think that we can easily agree that this form of dialogue should be, could be, one of aesthetic dialogue. So we try not to much to elaborate discursively but see how these issues resonate, the resonance or the reflection, in terms of giving back. Resonances more than constructing discourse.

I agree.

I think we know what we mean when I say that. And the second point is the project which takes the form of the call.

Yes, the call.

Do we want to refer to the literality of the call or to the spirit of the call?

I think what I have been trying to do or tune into is two-fold: one is the sense of going back to the call and looking at it again, now, with fresh eyes, to see what might be invoked by some of the propositions or statement of the call. How is it that these have been phrased and what arises from the fresh encounter with those ideas? So on the one hand, almost like newly going back to the call in its detail and yet at the same time holding in mind the journey travelled between the writing of the call and now, and all of what has been encompassed in that journey – from the initial expressions of interest, to the process of reading and encountering people’s contribution, to where we are now at this moment. So there are these two related but different experiences that I am holding in relation – this going back to the call as if I have not read it, and at the same time what can be understood of the call with the hindsight now of the journey travelled.

And in addition to it, maybe, and what I think would be nice, and useful and enriching, to consider let’s say where it all started which was in the preparation for Venice. There is a continuity from this moment, from the proposal for the research cell, to the preparatory meetings which were especially interesting, especially maybe the first. And then, not so much the experience of Venice, I would not go into that … but thinking a little bit of the continuation – where this call came from. Because for me the call crystallises some developments that took place there, yes. And I think that the whole journey as you say, is an attempt to explore a field which, a field, a field of research, which takes two references, or which refers to two fields which can be outlined as autonomous fields: one is artistic research or aesthetic research, and the other one is phenomenology. I mean, what I am saying is quite obvious, but maybe it is quite nice to revisit this obviousness. And somehow it is guided by an intuition that there is a common field, that there is something in common.

And I guess that one of the things that I have been coming back to I guess, is what is meant by, or what is implied by, or how is this ‘in common’? And, again, in part looking at and encountering some of the contributions and thinking about this sense of ‘in common’ and how this sense of ‘in common’ manifests? Interestingly, at times the sense of ‘common’ is manifested in its opposite – to it becomes demonstrated through difference. So you get in some of the contributions, an attempt to delineate the difference between artistic research and phenomenological practice. And then, I suppose, something about these different registers of ‘being in common’, or actually even, a sense of being-in-touch. Or whether it might be possible to think about these two fields of practice as being in touch and what that mode of being in touch might open up? I suppose, I imagine them almost like a Venn diagram, two spheres of practice, and then different possibilities emerge depending on how these two spheres of practice overlap or how they overlap or how they touch or how they repel even. Actually, as I am saying this, I am thinking about magnets. Is there a kind of pull between these two fields of practice, like magnetically, towards some kind of contact, or actually is it something like, interestingly with magnets, sometimes the closer you bring them, it is only then that the repellent force becomes evident, and they push themselves away. And I can even see a sense of this – while ever there was a little bit of distance the commonalities seem strong, but where there is an attempt in places to bring the two together somehow the differences became more magnified. Something to do with different registers of in-touch-ness, or connection, or contact or commonality, and what these different registers might open up in terms of how we think about these fields of practice, or even what might exist in between.

Another term could be affinity. So this intuition of an affinity between these two fields of practice. Maybe this is better than saying in common, because in common is already a form of affinity. Affinity is an interesting starting point. And there is also something which inhabits, two different problematics which inhabits each of these fields in my opinion, that come also into expression when this affinity is explored. And this can be on the one hand the tension between artistic and/or aesthetic practices – where practices is not questioned in this sphere. But the tension is between these practices and these practices being practices of research. We affirm that. The one’s who practice in this field of so-called, just to take a term, artistic research; we affirm that, but we know that this remains problematic. So, so, how artistic and aesthetic practices can be affirmed, and especially practices, as practices of research is still a question. And the other field, at least originally, is a field of philosophy. So phenomenology was born and was mainly developed as a philosophical endeavour. And so it is not a question that this is a form of research. This is research let’s say – this is not questioned there. But the question there is the question of practices, which in my opinion should be out of debate, because it was affirmed by Husserl. But, let’s say, the system of philosophy is not so used to identified practices or accepting that they are practitioners as are artists. So in standard terms, artists are practitioners and philosophers are theorists. Which is then to not be practitioners. So I see this tension, and this tension comes to take different forms of expression and also in terms of demarcating differences when we explore the possibilities of affinities.

I think that the sense of degrees of, how would it be, qualifying or the nuance at each of those levels feels important. So if I understand, you were differentiating … not only is it artistic practices but it is artistic research practices. But again the thing that becomes a further point of nuance within this particular journal call is: not only artistic practices but artistic research practices, but not only artistic research practices but artistic research practices that have a particular relationship to phenomenology. I think maybe even the relationship between artistic research and phenomenology could be a different way of describing it. So I am curious in that nuance – is it to say: not only artistic practices but artistic research practices, and not only artistic research practices but artistic “hyphen” phenomenological research practices; or is it phenomenologically-oriented artistic research practices, or is it artistic research practices with an affinity to phenomenology … so that last nuance feels not yet clarified in a sense or maybe that this feels to be the terrain of exploration in a way. I think that the clarity of not only artistic practices but also artistic research practices, yes. This is very clear. But this transition into the meeting or the relationship with phenomenology opens up into a whole range of possibilities of connection. And I am curious about that really. This closeness to or distance from phenomenology – whether those artistic research practices also have to be phenomenological research practices or if it is this range of relation that we are exploring? Its closeness to, its distance from, its difference from, its proximity but difference – there is a whole set of nuances there that feels very generative somehow.

Yes, these formulations are interesting because they show different possibilities. Actually, I would say, that our take for this call was, a let’s say, a strong name. Naming this with a hyphen. Even there, we could have two variations: we could say it’s the same because the order does not matter, but I think that it matters. So I mean, artistic “hyphen” phenomenological research practices. We have always thought in this way, the two of us. Maybe because the impulse for this project came from us, came from the field of artistic research. But we never formulated it, or at least I never formulated it as phenomenological “hyphen” artistic research practices.We can say it is the same, but we can say it is not. We can say that this order matters or has a meaning or value. And this, anyway this I could call it the strong variation. So we are affirming, and I think that this is the approach within this call, the approach or the starting point of this Special Issue, we say yes we affirm that there are research practices that at the same time are artistic and phenomenological. The other, let’s say ‘soft variations’, which funnily enough had two variants now, I am realising this for the first time. So a phenomenologically-oriented or -based artistic research practice. We never, or at least I never formulated it in the other way – so, an artistically-oriented or -based or informed phenomenological research practices. The whole time it seems to me that, and this is just a feeling, not just, this is a feeling, that phenomenology and by this I mean phenomenologists are fine where they are, there is no need. We are philosophers and we are doing phenomenology, our way of doing philosophy is phenomenology or our philosophical approach is phenomenological. But we are fine, you know. So self-sufficient. And so this impulse comes from us, from artistic research, from artistic researchers, to refer to them. That is why we are constantly thinking about phenomenologically-oriented or -based or -informed practices. So this for me, expresses this reference. From practices that are at least not born in this field, but attend to it, refer to it.And I think there could be a third possibility, which for me has been increasingly interesting which probably comes closer to the second or is easy to be thought through the second or starting from the second which is one for which I have no name. And this is like this third. So we relate there to practices … actually there is a fourth one. What I was trying to describe would be the fourth one. But there is a third. Wait a second, what is the second already. Well no. No I think it is the third which I think is the idea of an aesthetic phenomenology. I think that this is a third variation, which is clearly that it is phenomenology instantiated aesthetically. And the fourth variation would be this third, it is something that cannot properly be described as artistic or aesthetic nor as phenomenology.

There are lots of variations. Maybe going back to one of things that you started with, the sense of orientation or the directionality between artistic research and phenomenological research. If I look at the call again I think that there is something in the language of that spoke more to a sense of mutuality, mutual transformation, reciprocity, cross-contamination, hybridisation, where the sense of the one to the other was less defined and felt more like it could be a passage between both in a way. There is this question of whether that directionality from artistic research towards phenomenological research indicates hierarchy. What kind of relation does that set up in the sense of deference even? What you are pointing to is the sense of the organisation of artistic “hyphen” phenomenological, it is arrived at but never seen in the opposite orientation of phenomenological “hyphen” artistic, and there is something interesting that emerges there, a kind of taken-for-granted-ness about that particular correlation.So this struck me as interested. Then there is something about this hyphenation which feels as if it could also invite exploration. I think about this in relation to “choreo-graphic figures” where there is the use of the hyphen, and this practice of hyphenation had a dual function in a way: it holds the two things together but it also keeps them apart. So there is a dual function in hyphenation: there is a sense of holding in relation and also holding in separation. So there is something about the irreconcilability of the two sides of the hyphen, or the impossibility of synthesis indicated through that. And I think the thing that you were talking about … so yes, the hyphen on the one hand might suggest that they are the same, that they are the same, that they are interchangeable, no, that artistic and phenomenological practices are one and the same within a certain set of practices. But then you were talking about the sense that maybe the difference matters. So maybe I am interested in how this difference might matter. I am taking a tangent here, but one of the things I have been thinking about a lot in relation to the last rounds of review is these terms like “not enough” or “not phenomenological enough”. So there are a few terms: “almost” so “almost phenomenological” or “not enough”, “not phenomenological enough”. And also the presence of terms like “but” and “however”. And perhaps rather than seeing these as like deficits, maybe within there is a germ for really understanding the distinctiveness of artistic research within this terrain. I think that this sense of it not being 'enough’, ‘not being phenomenological enough’, signals that it somehow fails to be phenomenological, but I wonder whether there is something about the distinctiveness of certain artistic research practices where rather than it being a deficit or a failure, it really points to what artistic research does. That might be different from phenomenology. I am not sure, I have a suspicion that there is something about this sense of withholding or holding back or not quite following through into a phenomenological insight that seems to recur, that might be, there might something about the nature of artistic research practices that hold things open but don’t then follow all the way through into conclusion. There is something of this ‘not enough’, that also speaks of a ‘not yet’ or … I don’t know. I am not sure, but it feels like there is something there.

I mean, one thing I see there is also, I mean, starting from the beginning again, there is the affirmation of these two fields or spheres of practice. OK. So we take this for granted: there is artistic research, there is phenomenology. OK. But now, how is this being expressed, in a normative closed way, in terms of a definitional way. This is artistic research, which mean all this is not. Or as you say ‘not enough’ or ‘not really’. Because there is artistic research. The positive side of this ‘not enough’ is the affirmation ‘this is’, this is artistic research, this is phenomenology. I think in this journey where these expressions were referring to phenomenology, nevertheless, there was one case, and it was my submission, when there was a common ‘is this artistic?’. No doubt this is aesthetic, but is it artistic? In this case, there was another term, that somehow justified (but not really again), but in the case of phenomenology there is no equivalent term, in terms of saying ‘well it is not phenomenology’ but it could be something like phenomenological. We would probably go with this phenomenologically-oriented or it is partly phenomenological. Interestingly both fields, and this is quite exceptional in philosophy or in humanities, in both fields, the definition of both fields has always been a question.So, the beginning of The Phenomenology of Perception is “What is the question, what is phenomenology?”. And the sense that it is strange that we keep asking the question almost fifty years after the foundation of it. I mean this could be the beginning of a book about artistic research: “What is artistic research?”. It is interesting that we keep asking this. So somehow this, in my opinion, this should make difficult to affirm that this is not phenomenology or this is ‘not enough’, this is ‘not phenomenological enough’. And somehow I think this openness, this definition of openness, about these two spheres could be, or probably should be if I am honest, a necessary starting point for this enquiry into these affinities. Let’s say as a norm, as a rule of the game, this cannot be said: it cannot be said it is not phenomenological or it is not artistic enough. Nevertheless, this rule should always be possible to be violated because it is interesting when someone says this is not artistic enough or phenomenological enough. It is interesting because even though I am affirming the impossibility to really say ‘this is artistic’ or ‘this is phenomenological’, we are using these terms. So there is a demarcation. We have a sense of ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’.

I was reading again Michael Biggs’ text, and was struck again by his comments in it that artistic research has almost, the historical definition making of it, has been through this sense of negative affirmation: what artistic research is not. There was a point where I was interested in the possibility of saying declaratively that artistic research is not phenomenology. Or even what the difference might be between saying ‘this is not phenomenology’ and ‘this is not phenomenological enough’. Whether even the second statement implies that there is already the attempt for one practice to be like the other, or be the other. And actually, maybe in the clarity of saying that artistic research is not phenomenology, that kind of deficit, deferent relation to phenomenology is somehow short-circuited. So if you were to say that artistic research is not phenomenology, is that even a pre-condition for exploring what the relationship is. I even wondered, is it possible to explore a relationship if things are considered to be “as”? Can there be any relationship between artistic research and phenomenology if they are considered to be one and the same practice? Is this condition of not-ness a precondition for exploring relations, or exploring connection or affinity?

It can be. What I am seeing is a triangle. One vertex of the triangle is this issue of definition. So how defined or how open are these fields or these concepts, of artistic research and phenomenology, or artistic research and phenomenological research to establish a common base? Because this common base was never doubted in this instance. Well, well, well – in some cases, in some submissions, it is an issue in terms of art and research. Because also there is this model of artistic research or this concept of artistic research which I call the additive model, which is “I am making art” and “I make research”. And it can happen in two different combinations, first I make art and then I make research, or first I make research and then I make art. And we have these expressions: art-based research or theory-based art, or research-based art. We have them. And we have these cases too. But the point is, this triangle I wanted to describe … on the one hand, the definition of these fields, not so much of what or with what definition but rather than -finitional combination. So how much defined, positively or negatively as you said. The other point for me is the operations between them. You talk about mutual transformation, hybridization, being-in-touch … I would also say “addition”. Philosophical “and”, so “plus”. So this is phenomenological plus artistic research, artistic research plus phenomenology. This is the second vertex of this triangle, and the third is this, at least for me now, four possibilities of expression of this field that results from the performance of these affinities so: artistic-phenomenological research; phenomenology- or phenomenologically-based or -informed or -oriented artistic research; and this aesthetic phenomenology, that we can also always invert and talk about phenomenological art or phenomenological aesthetics, and this which I can the “third”, this unnamed function, this unnamed possibility. I think that these three (diagramming a triangle) elements have a systemic dynamic, in the sense that they are mutually conditions of possibility and results. So somehow I think that we are constantly between these three points of … these three polarities, or fields of operation: definition, relation and resulting entanglement.

I think that the thing around addition and the relation to “and” also seems interesting in relation to this hyphenation of artistic “and” phenomenological. On the one hand, to say something is artistic “and” phenomenological could suggest “at the same time”, it is both at the same time, it is both. It is both artistic “and” phenomenological. But there is already the question of ‘how’, in the sense of – is that in combination, or is that through integration, or through synthesis, so the nature of this ‘and as both’ is also open to a whole set of variations and possibilities. And then there is this additive sensein the way that you were talking in terms of art ‘and’ research, in the sense that first there is art and then there is research, it gets added to it.You could see this in some cases where first there is the artistic research and then there is the phenomenological practice which is applied to, so it follows. The one comes first and then the other is applied to it. There was another one … something else about and-ness. I guess the thing with the ‘and’ in this sense, and I don’t know whether there is a cautionary dimension to it, to this addition of the methods and practices of others fields and disciplines, from other fields of practice, to artistic research in a defensive way. That often within artistic research that nature of addition is one of bolstering or propping or validating or justifying or retrospectively rationalising the research that is done artistically. It is added on after the artistic research as a way of giving that research some credibility or research credentials.

This can also happen in different ways. So, me personally, I believe in this, in the model in which I affirm that artistic research is an autonomous form of research, and saying that, I am at least as structurally, or I keep writing this, so equating this with philosophy or humanities or mathematics or natural sciences or social sciences or whatever. And then, as is always the case, all these autonomous forms of research are connected. So, in different ways. So sociologists refer to philosophers, philosophers refer to physicians, physicians refer to anthropologists, is this the case, so to biologists ... and so on. So all these autonomous research forms are in touch with one another, and this is not a strategy of legitimation, it is a function of our thinking. So our being society: we think in different ways but there is this unity let’s say, that we are a group, one group, society or culture. And this is not a legitimising strategy. It can be in the say that good science is the one that can be used by engineering. Then this is a criteria of quality but I do not mean it necessarily in this way. I mean it in the spontaneous flux of everything: of practices, of results, of methods, of approaches, of ideas, of concepts in between all these autonomous fields, and also this enables the autonomy of these fields. It is also because natural science is autonomous that engineering, or applied research, can work. So I believe this is the way it works and I believe this is also the case for artistic research and in this sense, if a phenomenologist refers in his or her work to an artistic research practice or process or project, nothing to be added, this is what is happening the whole time. But I would say that this is not the form of relation that we are, I would say that this is not the form of relation that we are interested in within this Special Issue. And I think make it very clear … no this is another point. So it is not, we were not interested in artistic research which in the most common case is art-based phenomenology, or phenomenology of artistic research nor in the other way around. I would say this is was not our interest: the form of relationship between these two fields that we were interested to enquire into for this Special Issue, for this Special Issue is research, is itself an enquiry, it is not only a form of publishing or disseminating, it is a research endeavour. This maybe should be made clear – we are researching these affinities through or by means of a Special Issue in a journal.

The way that you were describing different research fields or practices somehow being in touch, was bringing to mind conversations around ‘ecologies of practices’. I think that the sense of an ecological language for thinking about the relation of things …. I have been finding this helpful, particularly a different way of describing mutual, reciprocal, transformative relations might be symbiotic, a form of symbiosis. But I think that the way that you were describing it as a spontaneous, a spontaneous ecology of in-touch-ness differentiated from a more instrumental sense of how one field of practice might “use” another. I guess there was … I need to delve into this … something about different species or varieties of symbiosis also felt interesting. On the one hand, there is a kind of predatory or parasitic form, where you are ‘using’ the other, for one’s own ends, so an instrumentalised relation to the other, perhaps even causing harm to the other. There is a kind of relationship that might cause harm or damage to the other in some kind of way. And then is something where there is a form which is more like mimicry, which is based on mimicry, which I think could also be interesting and is observable within the field – where one field of practice mimics the practices, approaches, methods, languages of the other, or appropriates. So mimicry or appropriation on the one hand, and a parasitic using or adopting or theft even on the other, both of which feel that any sense of reciprocity is lacking. It is somehow, maybe there is something about how to avoid those tendencies in practice. Or maybe that is a bit moral.

The basis of this is a judgement of course. I think that all these operations are possible and I would not discard or devaluate one. Now I am talking as a third person, so not as an artist, as in what I do. So I can say this is not a devaluation, but this is not what I do, this is what I do. I am not saying this is not worth to be done, because there is a for me added to it. So, yes, yes, there are all these operations on two fields more or less defined, that come to a third field, anyway, that can more or less autonomous in relation to these two. So I think that the highest point of autonomy is in this fourth, this what can be called this ‘third’, so cannot be, or should not be named as either artistic nor phenomenological. And I have to say now this is a variation I am more interested in, because very often I have the feeling that operating or handling these categories artistic or phenomenological, I was going to say we don’t really touch the point or the points or these points are not clear enough. So this would be like the situation where someone says ‘this is not phenomenological enough’, and then the question might be well what do you mean by phenomenological, which is a good question. The question is why is this not enough, but actually I think a more interesting question is ‘how, so, what do you mean then with phenomenology?’. And then I think maybe it will follow a model of doubt or maybe not, but with or without doubt comes a ‘well, phenomenology is this’. And that is why this is not enough or why this is not really. But there the focus is the definition of the field but not what are the constitutive traits of this, the specificities of these forms of research and this is what for me is interesting. One issue in this first preparation meeting for the research pavilion in Venice, and I come back again and again to this moment with Mika Elo who asked this question – is this about artists making phenomenology? Or is this about artists trying to be phenomenologists, which implies a clear hierarchy. So this is like by means of elevation, so art is elevated to an implicitly higher category which is philosophy. So this Hegelian model, yes. And we say we were surprised by the question, not because it is a weird question, but probably because we had not been facing this question enough ourselves. And then I think the answer was ‘no, of course not’, without having prepared the answer, OK then what. And I think this is the line of enquiry which for me is interesting. No clearly not, so I don’t want to move in a hierarchical field. I don’t consider any of these two fields as being more valuable or superior to the other, OK. So, what is this form of research I am interested in. And now do it without using the terms phenomenology and art.

There are two, I am thinking about there being these two almost different momentums within this commonality or in-touch-ness or relation. On the one hand, we talked about this almost at the beginning which was to conceive of a kind of taxonomy or typology of all of the possible connections between these two fields of practices, all of the varieties of connection between artistic research and phenomenology. Touching on what we are already saying: informed by, influenced by, oriented towards, mimicking, appropriating, using. There is a whole list. But the thing that strikes me as interesting within those relations is I wonder how much transformation functions or operates. That it feels as if there is a sense that both practices remain reasonably intact, that there is something about the use of one practice within another – does it actually transform or open up into a space of actual enquiry, even a folding back of enquiry to interrogate the sense of that research practice in its own right. So on the one hand there is a list of possible varieties of connection, and then there are these other species of connection which ‘force’, I use this term but not in a violent way, that force an opening or a rethinking or a re-evaluation of ways of doing things. So it doesn’t leave the practices intact, it requires transformation. So I wonder whether that “third” … there were two models that you were talking about. One seems to be, let me think of how to say it, one is an “and” but which is not ‘additive’, so it is aesthetic phenomenology or artistic phenomenology. Actually, the hyphen has disappeared here in a way. There has been the emergence of a new species which is not so much to do with the in-touch-ness of two separate fields of practice but the emergence of a fully integrated or fully synthesized form that has its own autonomy perhaps.

Yes and no. The hyphen has disappeared but there is a substantive and an adjective, and this implies a hierarchy. Because the adjective qualifies the substantive. So if I say aesthetic phenomenology, I am making strong, phenomenology. This is my feeling. So what do you do, I do phenomenology, but aesthetically, and aesthetically.

Is this the case? Now I go on a tangent. I am in the last stage of editing a book on live coding, a performance practice. And the copyeditors at MIT, when we have written something like ‘live coding performance’, they have hyphenated live coding as if it is used in an adjectival sense. So live-coding becomes an adjective that qualifies. But we have argued that this is not the case as it creates hierarchy, it privileges the term performance and diminishes live coding in relation to that. And actually live coding is not used adjectivally but is a proper noun.

But then there would be the possibility of performative live coding and then performative is the adjective and live coding is the substantive.

I mean this is getting into semantics in a way but I wonder whether there is a way of conceiving of aesthetic phenomenology where that relationship between how is it, the noun and the adjective is disqualified, in order to, in order to really avoid this hierarchisation of the one above the other.

Yes I agree. And actually I was affirming this. What I was interested in, and I am saying it in past form, was an aesthetic phenomenology. And there were two, and actually in order I think to realise this what you are seeing as a non-hierarchical relationship, I think that this new thing, this ‘no name’ possibility is needed. Because, and the operation there is not of transformation. Because for me aesthetic phenomenology meant the transformation of phenomenology. For example, phenomenological practices that can be realised in other media and not only in the media of language. Or, even in the medium of language, with different practices of language which are not propositional or discursive. And this is a transformation – so phenomenology was this, and now it becomes that. It is phenomenology but it is transformed. OK. Interesting, for sure. But I think now I am much more interested in making a step further in talking about a form of research, acknowledging the genealogy, acknowledging that in its genealogy phenomenology and artistic research can be found. Or even stronger, that these fields are the origin of this new one, but this new one is a new one. Of course, due to this genealogy it is connected to them, but it is not the same. I don’t know if what I say is what I mean but would it be the same for a case like urban studies. So urban studies is not architecture, it is not sociology, it is not anthropology, it is not geography, it comes from all these fields. Without all these fields there will not be urban studies. But urban studies is something else. Funnily enough these fields also in academia, especially in the States, they exist not as their own discipline or department or faculty, so the institutionalisation sense, but as something else, and with their own name, yes. And I think I am going in this way. I think it is interesting to say, for me, but this is too much what I am interested in and not the issue, so I would say better to change track.

But there is something in trying to get close to the kind of relation or correlation that is present there, because as you are describing that I am thinking of terms like ‘composite’. Or even the sense of a research practice being a bricolage of other research practices, or an assemblage. Thinking about the sense that a bricolaged practice or an assemblage has its own identity even though it is comprised of a composite of parts.

I would talk about hybridisation. There is something new, and there is a recognition that this something new comes from something established or something already existing. This is my sense of hybrid, a hybrid is something that is neither/nor but is both at the same time. So it includes, but it takes another form. So not so much the idea of transformation but really a new birth.

Yes, and then on the other hand there is something that is … maybe it is the same. I am thinking … tonight I am doing a talk from a text I wrote recently which draws on the organism of lichen, but lichen is a particular, specific organism which is actually fungus and algae.

It is a symbiotic.

No it is not – because lichen is comprised as fungus and algae, and yet it has properties that are distinct from either of them.

Exactly, exactly.

So it is interesting, so it preserves the presence of its two constitutive parts – fungus and algae – (or we might think of artistic research and phenomenology) and yet at the same time it has characteristics that are not properties of either of them.

Yes, that is interesting.

There probably is a name for it biologically. But really it is about trying to be precise about the nature of the relation of those two things: they are not synthesised, they are not reconciled in some kind of way, they are held in relation where they are allowed to retain their distinctiveness, and yet there is something else which is neither the property of the one nor the other. And there is something about this that I am interested in.

Yes. Yes. And I think that this goes further than this than what I was thinking about, because what I was thinking about was let’s say, following your example, an entity that has qualities of both, but with the example of the lichen, you add this ‘and new properties’. So it is true that lichen has properties of the algae and the fungus, but it is not true that the algae and the fungus has properties of the lichen. And this is a step farther. I think that this is a fifth model I would say, or maybe in the fourth but I don’t see it. The fourth is still somehow additional, in terms of these threads and these threads – I am not sure.

It is also making me think about the model of conversation, I am not sure if this does relate. The nature of the in-touch could have a quality of conversation or of dialogue, where in that meeting of the one and the other, there is something that emerges that does not belong to the one or the other but emerges through the nature of the contact.

Yes, a conversation is let’s say, more than my talk and your talk. There we have the lichen.

And even the idiom of something being more than the sum of its parts seems to resonate.

Exactly, exactly. There must be a name for that. I have to look at it. But I thought lichen was thought as a symbiotic.

It probably is, but symbiosis has a whole set of sub-categories. So, symbiosis, I think that this is true in terms of its organisation, let me think, there are three main forms: commensalism, and then parasitic and mutualistic. But then there are others within this, so the nature of symbiosis varies in terms of degrees of relationship, of hierarchy, of harm, or mutual benefit, which I think makes it an interesting term for considering the in-touch-ness of practices. But it could also, maybe I go on a tangent now, maybe my concentration is wavering, but it could be that in terms of the call we sort of enter in with this question of ‘how is the commonality?’, but it may be that this is not the place of entry, or not the only place of entry. Oh no, there were two things in my mind – one was to go back to this typology and all these different varieties of in-touch-ness, and whether there is a way if avoiding, or whether there is an implicit sense of a hierarchy within that?

Yes, maybe this is a nice moment to literally read the call, because I am aware that I am working with my memories of the call but not the text. So here is the question, how did we formulate. Do we want to do that now? Should I read it.

I have it printed out also. It would be nice to read it. The thing that shone out on reading it again was the statement that ‘both sets of practices share a basic aspect, they approach their object of research as phenomena, that is, through their phenomenal presences’. So there was something about this through-ness, this ‘through phenomena’ that could also be the entry point.

Yes, and this is the logic of this ‘unnamed variation’, the identification of constitutive traits of both fields, that these, that in this unnamed form of research can be found. And this could be one. So, yes, I affirm that this form of research operates with phenomena. And in saying that, I was going to say, I am somehow affirming a definition of what a phenomenon is given by phenomenology. And then the critic of the hierarchy again can appear, yes, but the I am saying from the very beginning in this new form of research, you will find elements that comes from both, but these elements will not relate to one another hierarchically. This is the difference. But even there I think, even there I think, there will be, I mean, it is field, I was going to say battle field, it is not true, but it is a field of discussion. And even there, even the question what is a phenomena, can be answered in different ways, or has been answered in different ways in the history of what calls itself phenomenology. For example, the big debate about the relationship between the phenomenon and the thing, is the phenomenon the thing or not? This a big issue, an open issue for phenomenology. So in the attempt of the characterising, because it would not be a definition of a new form of research, which crystallises a form of affinity between artistic research and phenomenology. And I say characterises, because it would be a list, at least a list of characteristics, it would be characterising. It would be this. So this form of research operates with phenomena. And now it must be necessary to provide at least a minimal definition of what is meant – being the phenomena. For example, another characteristic would be, or could be, this form of research operates with or through the observation of phenomena. So this would exclude other forms like analysis or interpretation, of course, everything is problematic for can you really establish such a clear difference between observation and analysis, or observation and interpretation. Ok, whatever I say is going to be problematic, I know. But nevertheless we have to say this, something. This is what I imagine and as you say we try to provide an anchor in this call: we came from that, which was also the movement we made, you and me made, in Helsinki, starting from Mika’s question. The name of our research cell was going to be a different one, I don’t know if I can recall it, but it was not as it went, as it was Through Phenomena Themselves. I think it was closer to the original inspiration which is ‘to the things themselves’ which is Husserl. Do you remember?

It was Back to the Things Themselves.

But we took the ‘through’ and we took the ‘phenomena’, and this was a result of our reflections, triggered by Mika’s questions and I think that this found a formulation in the call, where we say, however they are, these forms of practices of research - we haven’t so much touched on the point of the practices, because it was one clear attempt of this Special Issue to publish practices, not just artistic research, but practices, specific practices – and then, we proposed this. We believe that these practices in a specific form crystalises this affinity between these two fields, that depart from phenomena, that operate with or on phenomena. This is an unquestionable characteristic of the kinds of practices we are interested in.

I am thinking about this term ‘characteristic’ and this idea, as you are saying, of a list of characteristics. So yes, characteristics. Is this something, is this towards the ‘what-ness’ of this field of practice?

Sure, sure. Yes, absolutely. So what is, there is always a very tricky relationship between the ‘what’ and the ‘how’. So is this, is this the answer to the question ‘what is this practice?, or is the question more ‘how is this practice?’. Probably it is more related to the 'what’.

I guess I was wondering whether there is a kind of corresponding list of hows. I guess the terms, the field that was coming to mind more was the tending or tendencies of practice, or the inclination or leaning of a practice, of practising in a particular kind of way, and whether that actually is closer to a sense of a shared attitude between artistic research and phenomenological research practices. So, yes, I can’t really conceive of which is the one and which is the other and how they meet in a way, but there feels to be something to do with a shared tendency or a shared attitude, and whether this is the same as describing the characteristics, or where the overlap is between these two registers of identification in a way.

I mean, attitude is also a word quite fundamentally used in phenomenology, right – like a ‘natural attitude’. And for me, the term attitude is too vague. And I try to, I am not saying it is wrong at all, but I try to specify it in terms of forms of action. If I, in the sense, if I have an attitude or if someone has an attitude towards something, this person is making something, is acting in a way. So it is possible to specify or to clarity attitudes in terms of actions, and I think this brings us, or at least it brings me, to my feeling that in doing so, we know more about what we mean. I think that an attitude is previous stage. There is this attitude, but how is this attitude, and then we, probably the step is to go into actions.

Or etymologies also I wonder? The reason I say this is because two words came to mind, not necessarily as alternatives, but in relation to attitude. One was ‘perspective’, thinking about in terms of per-spective, I mean I would have to look this up, but I guess, per- through, seeing. And the other was ‘disposition’, a shared disposition. A sense of this dis-position. I mean, how would this be - a shared un-positioning.

Exactly. But in both cases I see the action there. I situate myself in certain relation to this. So this disposition is a set of actions, it is possible to be expressed in terms of a set of actions. So, because a disposition is always taken or adopted. That is what I meant. A perspective, also in an optical sense, is to put oneself in a certain spatial relationship towards something else. You are doing that. So I take a perspective, in the sense that I situate myself here and not there. I move there, I do it. This is what I mean, it is possible to break out of these perspective, these positions, these attitudes as a set of actions. So this is what thinking in terms of practice is for me. Fine, everything is fine – but what do you do, and how do you do it, in the interests of what of course? And probably in this relationship between the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ is what characterises. So in terms of defining traits, this is the sense that I am using characteristics here. Yes. And I think that the move would be what do you and then how do you do it. So in this case, the ‘how’ will follow the ‘what’ in this kind of thinking.

I think one thing that is in my mind – it might not connect, but it feels present as something to pick up more, is the sense that the result is one of destablisation. I have been trying to look through some of the contributions, and thinking almost of some questions. So one – can I identify the phenomenon that is taken as the core of this particular enquiry? Not always so easy to do actually. What is the phenomenon that is taken as the object of study or as the object of enquiry in this particular enquiry? What are the practices and how are they activated? And then there was something about how is the mode of touch or contact between artistic and phenomenological research practices? So specific examples of this and then maybe this, maybe this sounds a bit instrumental, but ‘to what effect?’.

Yes, and the question before the last one, could be also put in these terms. What elements, what characteristic traits of artistic research, and of phenomenology are to be found in this practice.So there are these fields [gesturing two fields] and I take this and this and this and this and this, and [gesturing a gathering together] with this I work. Not with the whole. So in this sense, it could be also said that this is not phenomenology, in terms that this is not ‘fully’ phenomenology. And it could also be said the same way – it is not fully art. And yes it is true but it has these elements and this selection and organisation of constitutive traits of both fields is the way that this affinity between both fields is expressed.

And this ‘not fully’ is really different I think from ‘not enough’.

Absolutely, I notice this when I say it, I felt that. Exactly.

I noticed in Esa’s contribution he talks about there being ‘aspects of’. And this felt interesting – what is an aspect?

I recognise there my use of the terms ‘characteristics’ or ‘traits’. For me, this is another expression of the same. For example, one aspect would be – it works with phenomena. Which for me means to be aware, and to be coherent with this awareness, that I am working with an appearance, with something that appears. So, of course, always what comes then is this question is what appears a thing? Or its appearance, I mean, this is the whole debate. But this could be an aspect.

I think that the sense of aspect that I was drawn to, I was drawn to its etymology – a sense of ‘a relative position to’, but also something to do with ‘appearance’ within the definition or the etymology of aspect. I need to look at this more – an observing or to look, it also has this specare like perspective. Meaning the look one wears or the appearance of things, meaning the way one is facing.

Meaning the aspect of someone. I don’t know if you use it this way in English, do you say someone has a good aspect?

You could, it is not so common. But this sense of leaning in the direction of, or facing in the direction of … but maybe this goes back to a sense of deference. Artistic research facing in the direction of phenomenology. There is something still about orientation.

‘Aspect’ in the sense that Esa wrote, could be understood as some ‘faces’ of it. So it is not the whole image, it is not the whole, but part of it.

I think that this feels really interesting to explore more – this ‘not fully’, these ‘faces’ or ‘facets’ of something.

Yes, exactly. So there is also a third. So ‘not fully’, ‘not enough’, and the aspect of course of the ‘enough’. So, in terms of saying, actually what I am tending to decide is the ‘not fully’ or ‘not really’ or the ‘not enough’, no the ‘not enough’, no what I want to say is ‘enough’. So I recognise ‘enough’ as a criteria of validity, I recognise enough elements of artistic research practices and enough of phenomenological research practices to affirm that these practices crystalises enough an affinity between artistic research and phenomenology. This is different than to say this practice is artistic and is phenomenological. This other way, this other approach is different – because it doesn’t agree to this strong being.

The other phrase that comes to mind is ‘not longer and not yet’, Victor Turner’s term for describing the liminal and I wonder whether this could be in relation to this ‘third other’ or the ‘not-yet-named’, it is no longer, but it is not yet.

Yes, I mean the negativity, I know there is a positivity of that, the positivity exactly of the liminal but actually what I am trying to reject is the ‘not enough’. And actually going in the direction of the ‘enough’ but the ‘enough’ not in the sense of affirming this practice as being, as being a practice of phenomenology. This is not the enough, the enough does not refer to that, but it is enough to be considered a realisation of this affinity. So I am referring to the affinity, not to the defined terms. And this is a big difference. So the argument is not that it is enough phenomenological, in order to be affirmed as being phenomenological, but it is enough phenomenological and enough artistic to be considered in this space, this liminal space, this third space, this space of affinity.So if someone says this enough phenomenological for this, and someone asks but is it phenomenology, the answer could be yes or not. But it would not be relevant, for our endeavour. And then we are affirming a kind of autonomy of this third space.

2nd Distillation

Transcript from Saturday 26 March 2022

Conversation (Part 1)

I think that we can easily agree that this form of dialogue should be, could be, one of aesthetic dialogue. So we try not to much to elaborate discursively but see how these issues resonate, the resonance or the reflection, in terms of giving back. Resonances more than constructing discourse.

I agree.

I think we know what we mean when I say that. And the second point is the project which takes the form of the call.

Yes, the call.

Do we want to refer to the literality of the call or to the spirit of the call?

I think what I have been trying to do or tune into is two-fold: one is the sense of going back to the call and looking at it again, now, with fresh eyes, to see what might be invoked by some of the propositions or statement of the call. How is it that these have been phrased and what arises from the fresh encounter with those ideas? So on the one hand, almost like newly going back to the call in its detail and yet at the same time holding in mind the journey travelled between the writing of the call and now, and all of what has been encompassed in that journey – from the initial expressions of interest, to the process of reading and encountering people’s contribution, to where we are now at this moment. So there are these two related but different experiences that I am holding in relation – this going back to the call as if I have not read it, and at the same time what can be understood of the call with the hindsight now of the journey travelled.

And in addition to it, maybe, and what I think would be nice, and useful and enriching, to consider let’s say where it all started which was in the preparation for Venice. There is a continuity from this moment, from the proposal for the research cell, to the preparatory meetings which were especially interesting, especially maybe the first. And then, not so much the experience of Venice, I would not go into that … but thinking a little bit of the continuation – where this call came from. Because for me the call crystallises some developments that took place there, yes. And I think that the whole journey as you say, is an attempt to explore a fieldwhich, a field, a field of research, which takes two references, or which refers to two fields which can be outlined as autonomous fields: one is artistic research or aesthetic research, and the other one is phenomenology. I mean, what I am saying is quite obvious, but maybe it is quite nice to revisit this obviousness. And somehow it is guided by an intuition that there is a common field, that there is something in common.

And I guess that one of the things that I have been coming back to I guess, is what is meant by, or what is implied by, or how is this ‘in common’? And, again, in part looking at and encountering some of the contributions and thinking about this sense of ‘in common’ and how this sense of ‘in common’ manifests? Interestingly, at times the sense of ‘common’ is manifested in its opposite – to it becomes demonstrated through difference. So you get in some of the contributions, an attempt to delineate the difference between artistic research and phenomenological practice. And then, I suppose, something about these different registers of ‘being in common’, or actually even, a sense of being-in-touch. Or whether it might be possible to think about these two fields of practice as being in touch and what that mode of being in touch might open up? I suppose, I imagine them almost like a Venn diagram, two spheres of practice, and then different possibilities emerge depending on how these two spheres of practice overlap or how they overlap or how they touch or how they repel even. Actually, as I am saying this, I am thinking about magnets. Is there a kind of pull between these two fields of practice, like magnetically, towards some kind of contact, or actually is it something like, interestingly with magnets, sometimes the closer you bring them, it is only then that the repellent force becomes evident, and they push themselves away. And I can even see a sense of this – while ever there was a little bit of distance the commonalities seem strong, but where there is an attempt in places to bring the two together somehow the differences became more magnified. Something to do with different registers of in-touch-ness, or connection, or contact or commonality, and what these different registers might open up in terms of how we think about these fields of practice, or even what might exist in between.

Another term could be affinity. So this intuition of an affinity between these two fields of practice. Maybe this is better than saying in common, because in common is already a form of affinity. Affinity is an interesting starting point. And there is also something which inhabits, two different problematics which inhabits each of these fields in my opinion, that come also into expression when this affinity is explored. And this can be on the one hand the tension between artistic and/or aesthetic practices – where practices is not questioned in this sphere. But the tension is between these practices and these practices being practices of research. We affirm that. The one’s who practice in this field of so-called, just to take a term, artistic research; we affirm that, but we know that this remains problematic. So, so, how artistic and aesthetic practices can be affirmed, and especially practices, as practices of research is still a question. And the other field, at least originally, is a field of philosophy. So phenomenology was born and was mainly developed as a philosophical endeavour. And so it is not a question that this is a form of research. This is research let’s say – this is not questioned there. But the question there is the question of practices, which in my opinion should be out of debate, because it was affirmed by Husserl. But, let’s say, the system of philosophy is not so used to identified practices or accepting that they are practitioners as are artists. So in standard terms, artists are practitioners and philosophers are theorists. Which is then to not be practitioners. So I see this tension, and this tension comes to take different forms of expression and also in terms of demarcating differences when we explore the possibilities of affinities.

I think that the sense of degrees of, how would it be, qualifying or the nuance at each of those levels feels important. So if I understand, you were differentiating … not only is it artistic practices but it is artistic research practices. But again the thing that becomes a further point of nuance within this particular journal call is: not only artistic practices but artistic research practices, but not only artistic research practices but artistic research practices that have a particular relationship to phenomenology. I think maybe even the relationship between artistic research and phenomenology could be a different way of describing it. So I am curious in that nuance – is it to say: not only artistic practices but artistic research practices, and not only artistic research practices but artistic “hyphen” phenomenological research practices; or is it phenomenologically-oriented artistic research practices, or is it artistic research practices with an affinity to phenomenology … so that last nuance feels not yet clarified in a sense or maybe that this feels to be the terrain of exploration in a way. I think that the clarity of not only artistic practices but also artistic research practices, yes. This is very clear. But this transition into the meeting or the relationship with phenomenology opens up into a whole range of possibilities of connection. And I am curious about that really. This closeness to or distance from phenomenology – whether those artistic research practices also have to be phenomenological research practices or if it is this range of relation that we are exploring? Its closeness to, its distance from, its difference from, its proximity but difference – there is a whole set of nuances there that feels very generative somehow.

Yes, these formulations are interesting because they show different possibilities. Actually, I would say, that our take for this call was, a let’s say, a strong name. Naming this with a hyphen. Even there, we could have two variations: we could say it’s the same because the order does not matter, but I think that it matters. So I mean, artistic “hyphen” phenomenological research practices. We have always thought in this way, the two of us. Maybe because the impulse for this project came from us, came from the field of artistic research. But we never formulated it, or at least I never formulated it as phenomenological “hyphen” artistic research practices.We can say it is the same, but we can say it is not. We can say that this order matters or has a meaning or value. And this, anyway this I could call it the strong variation. So we are affirming, and I think that this is the approach within this call, the approach or the starting point of this Special Issue, we say yes we affirm that there are research practices that at the same time are artistic and phenomenological. The other, let’s say ‘soft variations’, which funnily enough had two variants now, I am realising this for the first time. So a phenomenologically-oriented or -based artistic research practice. We never, or at least I never formulated it in the other way – so, an artistically-oriented or -based or informed phenomenological research practices. The whole time it seems to me that, and this is just a feeling, not just, this is a feeling, that phenomenology and by this I mean phenomenologists are fine where they are, there is no need. We are philosophers and we are doing phenomenology, our way of doing philosophy is phenomenology or our philosophical approach is phenomenological. But we are fine, you know. So self-sufficient. And so this impulse comes from us, from artistic research, from artistic researchers, to refer to them. That is why we are constantly thinking about phenomenologically-oriented or -based or -informed practices. So this for me, expresses this reference. From practices that are at least not born in this field, but attend to it, refer to it.And I think there could be a third possibility, which for me has been increasingly interesting which probably comes closer to the second or is easy to be thought through the second or starting from the second which is one for which I have no name. And this is like this third. So we relate there to practices … actually there is a fourth one. What I was trying to describe would be the fourth one. But there is a third. Wait a second, what is the second already. Well no. No I think it is the third which I think is the idea of an aesthetic phenomenology. I think that this is a third variation, which is clearly that it is phenomenology instantiated aesthetically. And the fourth variation would be this third, it is something that cannot properly be described as artistic or aesthetic nor as phenomenology.

There are lots of variations. Maybe going back to one of things that you started with, the sense of orientation or the directionality between artistic research and phenomenological research. If I look at the call again I think that there is something in the language of that spoke more to a sense of mutuality, mutual transformation, reciprocity, cross-contamination, hybridisation, where the sense of the one to the other was less defined and felt more like it could be a passage between both in a way. There is this question of whether that directionality from artistic research towards phenomenological research indicates hierarchy. What kind of relation does that set up in the sense of deference even? What you are pointing to is the sense of the organisation of artistic “hyphen” phenomenological, it is arrived at but never seen in the opposite orientation of phenomenological “hyphen” artistic, and there is something interesting that emerges there, a kind of taken-for-granted-ness about that particular correlation.So this struck me as interested. Then there is something about this hyphenation which feels as if it could also invite exploration. I think about this in relation to “choreo-graphic figures” where there is the use of the hyphen, and this practice of hyphenation had a dual function in a way: it holds the two things together but it also keeps them apart. So there is a dual function in hyphenation: there is a sense of holding in relation and also holding in separation. So there is something about the irreconcilability of the two sides of the hyphen, or the impossibility of synthesis indicated through that. And I think the thing that you were talking about … so yes, the hyphen on the one hand might suggest that they are the same, that they are the same, that they are interchangeable, no, that artistic and phenomenological practices are one and the same within a certain set of practices. But then you were talking about the sense that maybe the difference matters. So maybe I am interested in how this difference might matter. I am taking a tangent here, but one of the things I have been thinking about a lot in relation to the last rounds of review is these terms like “not enough” or “not phenomenological enough”. So there are a few terms: “almost” so“almost phenomenological” or “not enough”, “not phenomenological enough”. And also the presence of terms like “but” and “however”. And perhaps rather than seeing these as like deficits, maybe within there is a germ for really understanding the distinctiveness of artistic research within this terrain. I think that this sense of it not being 'enough’, ‘not being phenomenological enough’, signals that it somehow fails to be phenomenological, but I wonder whether there is something about the distinctiveness of certain artistic research practices where rather than it being a deficit or a failure, it really points to what artistic research does. That might be different from phenomenology. I am not sure, I have a suspicion that there is something about this sense of withholding or holding back or not quite following through into a phenomenological insight that seems to recur, that might be, there might something about the nature of artistic research practices that hold things open but don’t then follow all the way through into conclusion. There is something of this ‘not enough’, that also speaks of a ‘not yet’ or … I don’t know. I am not sure, but it feels like there is something there.

I mean, one thing I see there is also, I mean, starting from the beginning again, there is the affirmation of these two fields or spheres of practice. OK. So we take this for granted: there is artistic research, there is phenomenology. OK. But now, how is this being expressed, in a normative closed way, in terms of a definitional way. This is artistic research, which mean all this is not. Or as you say ‘not enough’ or ‘not really’. Because there is artistic research. The positive side of this ‘not enough’ is the affirmation ‘this is’, this is artistic research, this is phenomenology. I think in this journey where these expressions were referring to phenomenology, nevertheless, there was one case, and it was my submission, when there was a common ‘is this artistic?’. No doubt this is aesthetic, but is it artistic? In this case, there was another term, that somehow justified (but not really again), but in the case of phenomenology there is no equivalent term, in terms of saying ‘well it is not phenomenology’ but it could be something like phenomenological. We would probably go with this phenomenologically-oriented or it is partly phenomenological. Interestingly both fields, and this is quite exceptional in philosophy or in humanities, in both fields, the definition of both fields has always been a question.So, the beginning of The Phenomenology of Perception is “What is the question, what is phenomenology?”. And the sense that it is strange that we keep asking the question almost fifty years after the foundation of it. I mean this could be the beginning of a book about artistic research: “What is artistic research?”. It is interesting that we keep asking this. So somehow this, in my opinion, this should make difficult to affirm that this is not phenomenology or this is ‘not enough’, this is ‘not phenomenological enough’. And somehow I think this openness, this definition of openness, about these two spheres could be, or probably should be if I am honest, a necessary starting point for this enquiry into these affinities. Let’s say as a norm, as a rule of the game, this cannot be said: it cannot be said it is not phenomenological or it is not artistic enough. Nevertheless, this rule should always be possible to be violated because it is interesting when someone says this is not artistic enough or phenomenological enough. It is interesting because even though I am affirming the impossibility to really say ‘this is artistic’ or ‘this is phenomenological’, we are using these terms. So there is a demarcation. We have a sense of ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’.