OUTRO - Response to two peer reviews of my project.

Creating this Artistic Research project has been a revelation, especially as it is my first major independent artistic research project. 

I consider myself a music producer with a basis in artistic practice and a tiny foot in the door to the academic world. Without any formal academic training or standard practice of the process of artistic research and project development, I've dived deeply into a specific area of music production with my prerequiste knowledge and the willingness to both explore and to learn about undertaking artist research. 

Throughout this journey, I've had to not only meet the requirements outlined in the project description I wrote and also to adhere to my own standards of artistic quality  - I've also reflected on my artistic practice.

They way I understand Artistic Research from what different art schools in Denmark say about what they do and specifically using the definition from my own institution I think it will provide some foundation as to why I have worked as I have and also why there are some areas of my research that might be downplayed in relation to the peer review.

My own institution, RMC,  defines Artistic Research as “a multifaceted and diverse field of knowledge fundamentally rooted in artistic experience and insight, carried out by artists. This emphasizes the importance of individual artistic practice as a source of new knowledge about art and society”.

The Royal Academy of Music describes Artistic Research as “a process where artists' investigations through their practice are made accessible to others through documentation and critical reflection”.

The Royal Academy views Artistic Research as “focusing on art practice as a knowledge-producing activity. In their view, new knowledge is created in the artwork’s materiality and in the technical and theoretical knowledge that underpins it”.

These three art schools thus define Artistic Research as artistic practice with reflection on both the process and the outcome. They also note that it is performed by artists, who may also be academically trained researchers, journalists, art critics, or something else entirely. However, the primary focus is on artists conducting artistic research. I argue that this is the level at which my project should be judged: based on my abilities as an artist (not as an academic) to create works that meet the criteria set by the institution or other authoritative bodies. I maintain, despite the criticisms my project has faced during presentations, development, and peer reviews, that I should be evaluated as a researching artist and not as a researching academic. This makes some of the criticism challenging to apply, as it at times stems from different research traditions or introduces perspectives that are – in my artistic experience - not traditionally important in art creation. 

Every new door that this project has opened for me, or that I have opened through it, has presented numerous opportunities for exploration and investigation. This also applies to the dissemination of the project: there are no limits to what can or should be explained in a given project. Choices made in defining the project’s products, its arguments, my investigations, and in the communication of the project, will always be subject to criticism. Also one important point of this is that any given project has limited budgets and in this project I have had to manage this as well. So at some point I have to set limits on every element or facet of the research project and while some element might seem relevant or obvious to dive into and also some would benefit from being subjected to more rigorous and structered research, I have not done so – mainly because of trying to keep focus on the creation of art it self, of time constraints and probably also because of lack of academic training.

As this is my first major project, I acknowledge that I am a novice in the field and am eager to learn. Thus, I pay close attention to the questions and considerations posed and suggestions for expanding the project. I consider the criticism relevant and incorporate it where appropriate in future projects.

A significant perspective I've encountered in the peer review is the lack of focus on the music itself. The musical products are at the center of the research project but is hardly delt with or addressed. That seems to bypass the most relevant and embedded distinction between artistic and academic research. In doing so I can’t help but to feel that, the project’s independent premise and my effort to acquire knowledge during its development receive little attention.

As a colleague at RMC says, we must insist that some of the knowledge created in the making of works liveswithin the works themselves, not outside them.

How I have publicly written about the core focus of my project has been to put it this way: “Inspired by my own and others' practices as music producers, I aim to explore how types of the music producer's artistic co-ownership are negotiated and expressed in collaborative music-making processes. My interest revolves around how these negotiations of co-ownership occur in collective processes, focusing on the music producer's various roles and tasks, and the underlying arguments and desires/aspirations of those involved. It's also interesting to uncover the competencies required by different types of artistic co-ownership for the music producer”.

So, some of the critique the project has received is based on the idea of not expanding enough on certain elements or not putting enough references to other previous research into my dissemination.  While I do believe it's important to define key concepts and set boundaries for any research, trying to cover every possible aspect can be counterproductive. Focusing on specific areas, acknowledging the complexity, and presenting a clear argument or analysis based on these focused areas can make your research both manageable and relevant. It makes it easier to communicate when I chose to not focus on for example on simple mixing choices or coming up with arguments for doing things in certain ways that are not present in my artistic practice. Full total awareness of all choices is never what I have seeked to find nor desire to master. The complexity is too high so I leave some reflection out of my artistic practice and the reflection always comes afterwards… which makes it out of the time and the space it happened in… which then in turn makes it even more difficult to explain what happened when and why.

In this project, I've encountered a variety of critiques at different times, and I've given them careful consideration while also voicing my own perspectives and arguments. 

I'll now address the key critiques received from peer reviewers. 

First reviewer’s comments:

There's been feedback calling for more clarity in how I define and integrate the concept of co-creation within my project. Clarifying this concept involves several key aspects. First, it's crucial to explicitly define co-creation as the collaborative process where multiple individuals contribute creatively, influencing both the process and final form of the music production. From my two subprojects this includes the collaborative approach to mixing the music in subproject one with the engineer and composer to other production decisions being made on the spot in the studio based on maybe improvisation from musicians, engineers etc.

It is my experience that co-creation often occurs tacitly - as musicians may respond to each other's cues during a performance, akin to a dance where participants adapt to each other's styles and ideas. This metaphor of a "dance" which I have used through the podcast aptly describes the dynamic interplay in co-creation, emphasizing the fluidity and responsiveness inherent in collaborative music making. So this is my definition of co-creation: you work together to create something and I have used it in that manner.

It's also important to consider co-creation beyond just the creation of music, including aspects like shared project vision. Effective communication which I also used extensively plays a pivotal role in facilitating a fertile co-creative environment, and addressing the challenges faced, such as conflicts of ideas - it illustrates the complexities of collaborative music making.

A key aspect of my work involves the concept of the 'unconscious', which I initially – and admittedly wrongly referred to as 'subconscious'. While central to my work, discussing this concept within an academic framework is challenging due to its deep psychological and subjective implications. But I am aware that is one way of working that I have experience in in using.

My project leans more towards my strengths in artistic practice than academic training, leading me to prioritize artistic outcomes over academic rigor. This reflects my belief in the value and impact of artistic expression, even when it may diverge from traditional academic standards.

I have chosen to keep the interviews and research materials confidential to focus on how they inform my artistic conclusions. This approach is intentional, prioritizing the artistic essence of these materials over their standalone academic merit. I felt it was important for the listener of the podcast to learn about the outcomes of the interview rather to be able to backtrack what was said. Since I conducted a series of interviews any natural reference I have brought up in discussions stands on the shoulders of what was said in the previous interview so to be able to build upon a former interview to move the exploration onwards is – to me – outside of the scope of this research projects primary, secondary or even tertieary circles.

The reviewer have noted a lack of clear demonstration regarding the music genres I am inspired by for this music and also the compositional processes in my project. I argue that the project's focus was not meant to academically dissect these elements but to explore them through an artistic lens. Therefore the references to Antonio Carlos Jobim, Djavan, Marcos Valle, Chris Stableton, Milton Nascimento, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Alison Krauss is left out. I like a lot of music and am inspired by many different elements. My process of being inspired or composing music is not to dissect where maybe a chord progression could come from or a when melody line sounds ‘country’. It is a much more diffuse impression and if the research project in itself was about how to fuse two opposite genres together it would make sense to explore this even further. But this is where I have had to limit the dissemination of the project so I could focus on creating the works of art and also speak more about the negotiational aspects – the research focus.

Articulating the role of intuition in mix decisions has been challenging due to the subjective and often non-verbal nature of intuitive decision-making in artistic creation. Mixing music is what I do a lot of. I have tons of experience and to break the technical or artistic decisions down to explain how something ended up sounding is extremely complex. I don’t mind speaking about it or figuring it out but often I find myself not being able to explain decisions afterwards because I don’t believe in causality in artistic decisions – sometimes maybe, but most times not. My previous experience with showcasing projects in Artistic Research has also been from one person commenting “ we would like to know how you did it” and then another person told me in this project to leave it out of this project because it wasn’t deemed relevant to dive into by that person. There this critique of not sharing not all methods to its fullest extent seems to me in Artist Research to be of more personal character to the specific reviewer and not objectively a requirement. My conclusion on this is that the mixing part of music production is not at the heart of the project since the project opened other doors that for the development of my own practice seemed much more relevant to speak about.

The reviewer notes that the project blurs the lines between personal and artistic research, acknowledging that artistic research is inherently personal. This is crucial in understanding the nature of my artistic inquiry. My approach has not been shaped by established forms of artistic research that merge practice with rigorous research methodologies. This was a conscious choice, reflecting my background and the unique direction of my project. The reviewer suggests to restructure my project to include additional perspectives. Such a redesign would potentially shift the project away from its original vision, which is something I am careful about not doing.

I stand by my decision to present the podcast as a single, cohesive piece. I will however make it available for download since the listeners will not be glued to a computer but can bring it along – as the podcast-medium has gained traction with. This aligns with my creative vision and the way I wish to communicate the project's essence but I also acknowledge that the podcast medium can be difficult to review. However I believe the reach of the research will come farther out than just words on a screen here on Research Catalogue.

In addressing these critiques, I strive to find a balance between the feedback and my commitment to the original artistic vision and goals of the project. This involves a constant negotiation between external perspectives and my own creative instincts. I am thankful for the discussions with the reviewer in person at the presentation of my project and will definitely use some of the input in future projects. Those can be to be more stringent in the presentation of references or the lack of them, to make sure my communication is more clear as to what the project is and what it is not and finally to maybe do an artistic research project as a team to be able to cover more when creating music in realtime. I have good experience in sharing the task of research in previous projects and I think I then could address and discuss the feedback from the reviewer early on and not as peer review.

My use of critique of Artistic Research per se generated a comment by the reviewer. During my work with the project I have dived into what others critizes Artistic Research for and have found that the ongoing debate about the nature and purpose of artistic research frequently centers on its perceived over-academization and the extensive emphasis on written reflection. This concern has been echoed by numerous scholars, artists, and critics, each bringing a unique perspective to the discussion.

Henk Borgdorff, a notable figure in artistic research, has criticized the academic system for potentially limiting artistic creativity. He advocates for acknowledging the distinct contributions of artistic research, distinct from traditional academic models. Similarly, Graeme Sullivan, recognized for his insights into art practice as research, has warned against the loss of artistic essence when constrained by academic structures, calling for a research approach that stays true to the artistic practice – a stance that I ecco completely.

Art historian and critic James Elkins voices concerns about the increasing academic orientation of art, questioning whether the drive to meet academic standards may undermine the intrinsic value and uniqueness of artistic works. On a related note, Robin Nelson, a supporter of practice as research, criticizes the overemphasis on academic elements at the expense of practical and creative aspects, suggesting a more integrated approach where practice and theory mutually enrich each other. My solution would be to maybe have two researchers working on the same project but one from the artistic side and one from the academic although this idea is not explored fully. 

Moreover I found that many artists working in academic settings have expressed concerns about the necessity to frame their work within traditional academic parameters. They fear that it might dilute the artistic process and overly prioritize theoretical justification over artistic expression. All this critique that I here am laying out is collectively highlighting a significant tension within the field of artistic research. They reflect a broader debate about academia's role in artistic practices and the ongoing efforts to find a harmonious balance between artistic creativity and academic rigor. My experience from my first Artistic Research Project tells me, that there is something not in its right place just yet and I have at times felt that the demands and requirements of my research work has been unclear and personal based – it can be stressful to work under these terms and I know artistic work in itself is stressful.

I will now address the key critiques received from the second reviewer. 

Second reviewer’s comments:

Like the first reviewer there's been a noted need to describe specific inspirations for my project – the ones I mention above and basically my entire music library from those genres and to reference research projects and/or books where some of me knowledge comes from on the matters relevant to this particular project. I could mention academics and some of their published research like Professor Adam Martin’s “The role and working practice of Music Producers”, Associate Professor Martin Walther-Hansen’s “Making Sense of Recordings: How Cognitive Processing of Recorded Sound Works” and I could here highlight Professor Simon Zagorski-Thomas, artist Katia Isakoff et al’s book “ The Art of Record Production” that explores the significant role of record production in contemporary music experience; It delves into how the production of recordings not only affects the sound but also the overall musical aesthetics and integrates historical, theoretical approaches, and practical case studies. I could also reference the psychological dimensions of artistic work which has influenced my approach to songwriting and decisionmaking – here I would exemplify the concept of ‘Nach-erleben’ made famous by Anton Ehrenzweig in relation to what is authentism in art or I could point towards Wilfred Bions psychoanalysis concept of ‘the container and the contained’ in relation towards co-operation or what  is going on on an interpersonal level when I initiate or facilitate a musical process. This involves delving into the influences that have shaped my artistic approach and vision.

To me, the psychology of art and aesthetics is the study of the perception and experience of the visual arts, music, film, performances, literature, design, and the environment. Art is a human phenomenon, and therefore aesthetics is fundamentally a psychological process. With me not being a psychologist I can not speak about or reference how it all works… in the same way that my independent artistic expression in my understanding is not relevant nor needed to be subjected to a causality examination or logical linear backtracking. 

The academics and other researchers inform my practice but pointing towards being of particular relevance this project would be reaching for it, I believe.  All of this published research is relevant to my project but in the podcast I’ve chosen to keep a distance to referencing it since my experience from that format is not suited to convey that kind of information. Based on the reviewers feedback I will however create a reference list on Research Catalogue.

The importance of providing more documentation on my project's process and methodology has been highlighted by the second reviewer. The argument is that this documentation is crucial for understanding the journey and techniques behind my work, offering transparency and insight into my creative process. As in my comment to the first reviewer on this matter, I do still do believe the core of the project is conveyed although I could have shared more of the process and methodology if it were really different in the use of methodology to my usual practice. In future projects I will be observant to share more of the process and methodology when it is relevant to understand how anything came into the existance that it now has. While there's a desire for a detailed walkthrough of the process, I am concerned about the feasibility of this given the project's scope. Ensuring that such a detailed overview remains manageable and relevant to the project's aims is a key consideration.

I've addressed requests for clarification on certain statements in my project. While striving to provide this clarity, I am also mindful of not expanding the scope of the project beyond its original focus. This balancing act is crucial in maintaining the project's coherence and intent.

The reviewers feedback has also emphasized the need for a balance between academic knowledge and artistic practice. While the comments suggest incorporating more academic elements, I am careful to maintain a focus on artistic practice and reflection, ensuring that the project doesn't become overly academic – in line with the distinction of what Artistic Research is stated at my institution. 

In summary:

I am deeply grateful for the insightful reflections received through the peer review process of my Artistic Research project. This project, being my first major independent artistic research endeavor, has been a significant learning experience, offering valuable insights and identifying key areas for potential improvement.

The feedback has been instrumental in highlighting my strengths in artistic creation while also pinpointing opportunities for growth. Notably, it has shed light on aspects such as research methodology, documentation, project management, and the integration of critiques. These insights are particularly valuable, as they provide a clear direction for enhancing my skills and approach in future artistic research endeavors. I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by my peers, which has greatly contributed to my development in this field.