In this chapter I will discuss what methods will be used in my research. I have chosen artistic research based on performative research. Where the research is not bound by quantifiable or articulable results, and are rather shown through practice and media, such as still or moving images, pieces of music and performative pieces. Where the work and the process surrounding the work is the subject of this research (Hubner, 2024, p. 35).
Many practitioners would say they do ‘research’ as a necessary part of their everyday practice. As the published records of the creative practitioners demonstrate, searching for new understandings and seeking out new techniques for realising ideas is a substantial part of everyday practice. (Candy, 2006, p. 2)
Henk Borgdorff (2012) notes that “what artists do” will not automatically constitute research, not every piece of work or artistic practice is the outcome of scientific research (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 159). He further elaborates on what criteria should be fulfilled in order to qualify as academic research. It should carry out an original study with the aims of furthering knowledge and understanding, and it starts with questions and/or issues that are relevant to the research context. The methods employed should suit the research, ensuring validity and reliability of the findings, and that the research process and findings are documented and disseminated appropriately (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 160). Borgdorff present four elements of artistic research:
- Direct access: The research content often requires a reader’s direct engagement, as it could contain experiential components that cannot be verbalized. Borgdorff notes, artistic research partly investigates “the je ne sais quoi of artistic, aesthetic experience” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 147).
- Embodied knowledge: Knowledge and experiences emerge both in and through actions, practices and interactions. This approach could reveal hidden knowledge withing the creative process, allowing for an unmediated pathway to investigate art from within (Bordgorff, 2012, p. 148).
- Embeddedness: “Third, works of art and artistic practices are not self-contained; they are situated and embedded. The meaning of art is generated in interactions with relevant surroundings” (Borgdorff, 2012, p.148).
- Non-discursive outcomes: The experiences and insights discovered through artistic research manifests itself in the resulting artistic practices and products. These outcomes are often non-conceptual and non-discursive, finding their persuasive qualities from performative powers that expand our aesthetic experiences, opening up new pathways to unfinished thinking, guiding us towards critical perspectives on reality (Borgdorff, 2012, p.148).
Artistic research aims to do more than enrich an artist’s own practice—it contributes to broader knowledge by producing insights and innovations through artistic and creative processes. As one author notes, “the research is expressly intended to shift the frontiers of said discipline […] shedding new light on existing facts or relationships […] [and] developing cutting-edge artistic practices, products and insights” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 161). In the case of artistic research, one could apply the synonyms “insight” and “comprehension” to highlight the fact that a perceptive and empathetic engagement with the subject often takes precedence over the pursuit of explanatory clarity: The artist’s tacit understandings and their accumulated experiences, expertise, and sensitivity in exploring uncharted territory are more crucial in identifying challenges and solutions than an ability to delimit the study and put research questions into words during the early stages of research. According to Borgdorff (2012, pp. 163-164), it could, in fact, be more of a burden than a boon. Experimental art practice is a fundamental part of the research, just as the artist’s active involvement is essential to the research strategy. The chaotic nature of creative discovery—in which unsystematic drifting, serendipity, chance inspiration, and unexpected clues play an integral role—makes it difficult to codify a clear methodological justification (Borgdorff, 2012, pp. 165-166). Borgdorff states that the research involves doing unpredictable things, implying intuition and some measure of randomness, more like an exploration rather than following a set path (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 166). Nonetheless “a discursive justification of the research will be necessary with the academic discourse in mind, as well as the artistic findings will have to convince the art world as well” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 167). Two main perspectives are often adopted when discussing what artistic research offers: the constructivist and the hermeneutic perspective:
- The constructivist perspective states that artworks and artistic actions play a role in shaping objects and events. It is in and through art that we can understand what soundscapes, emotions or relations truly are or could be.
- “The hermeneutic perspective assumes that artistic practices and artworks disclose the world to us. The world-revealing power of art lies in its ability to offer us those new vistas, experiences, and insights that affect our relationship with the word and with ourselves” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 172).
Artistic research is the expression of unfinished thinking, which does not fit within conventional theory-building or knowledge production frameworks. Instead, artistic research creates space for uncertainty and exploration. “Art invites us and allows us to linger at the frontier of what there is, and it gives us an outlook on what might be. Artistic research is the deliberate articulation of these contingent perspectives” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 173).
Tacit knowledge is seen as an integral part of artistic research. Borgdorff notes that artistic research mostly revolves around knowing how to do something, to make something—practical knowledge, embodied knowledge, implicit knowledge, tacit knowledge (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 122). Hübner discusses different forms of knowledge, mentioning know-how as tacit, experimental, and embodied forms of knowing, referring to it as the “insider perspective,” stating its importance within artistic research (Hübner, 2024, p. 13). This unsaid knowledge is highly relevant to my research, as many of the choices I make during a creative process are done through intuition and feeling, where I may not necessarily be able to vocalize why or how these choices are being made during the process.
In the book “The Tacit Dimension”, Michael Polanyi states, “we can know more than we can tell.” (Polanyi, 1983, p. 4). Polanyi establishes two terms distinguishing elements of tacit knowledge, calling the first term proximal and the second term distal. He explains that in an act of tacit knowing, “we attend from something for attending to something else”, further stating that it is the proximal term where we possess knowledge that we may not be able to articulate, defining this aspect of tacit knowledge as “functional” (Polanyi, 1983, p. 10). He further establishes the second aspect of tacit knowledge, the “phenomenal structure”, stating that one is aware of proximal term of an act of tacit knowing in the appearance of its distal term, further elaborating by stating “we are aware of that from which we are attending to another thing, in the appearance of that thing” (Polanyi, 1983, p. 11).
Polanyi continues by discussing the relation of internal actions in tacit knowing, stating that when a thing functions as the proximal term of tacit knowing, we incorporate it in our bodily awareness so that we come to dwell in it (Polanyi, 1983, p. 16). He further states that the understanding of both man and of works of art can only be achieved by indwelling “it is not by looking at things, but by dwelling in them that we understand their joint meaning” (Polanyi, 1983, pp. 17-18).
According to the descriptions of Borgdorff and Polanyi, Artistic research, then, seems to allow artist to delve deeper into their personal art and expression, thinking less about what their art communicates, and how it should be conveyed. Further, this could allow the artists to simply observe what they do and leave the rest up to the interpretation of the audience. This closely resembles how art is experienced in everyday life, communicating their findings and thoughts through the complex language of art instead of the rigid and potentially misconstruable language of words. This approach aligns with the Norwegian model for artistic research presented by Lien (2023, p. 11).
I will apply an artistic research approach grounded in performative research, emphasizing expressive, non-quantifiable forms of knowledge—symbolic content that isn’t easily expressed through written language. Rather than relying on written or numerical data, this approach encompasses creative practices such as visual media, performance, and digital code (Hübner, 2024, p. 34). Darla Crispin and Bob Gilmore note that “In a world of research in which publication is paramount, the hegemony of the written word sits uncomfortably beside a body of work that does not have its essence in spoken and written language, but in music itself” (Crispin & Gilmore, 2014, p. 11).
However, to aid in understanding my creative process and the insights it might bring, I have been journaling throughout the process. Taking inspiration from what Hübner states as proper documentation: including identifiers for the context and origin of the piece presented, noting all activities that occurred, and relevant points of importance (Hübner, 2024, p.76). Focusing on feeling and intent, Crispin and Gilmore similarly state, “For such thinkers, the impulse for engaging with research emanates from the artist’s own questions about their art—its nature and origins, the processes through which it comes into being, the nature of its reception, and so on” (Crispin & Gilmore, 2014, p. 11).
Bordgorff states the importance of a practice’s embedded nature and relation to its surroundings (Borgdorff, 2012, p.148). With this in mind I have decided to utilize critical response process (CRP) after the creative process is completed, allowing for likeminded individuals situated in a similar world as me to comment and raise awareness to things that might have been glossed over otherwise.
Artistic research demands from its exponent’s high levels of proficiency in both the intellectual and the practical realms that are relevant to the specific research areas explored. Since the approaches involved require a high degree of self-scrutiny and analysis, the challenge to produce research outcomes that can bear critical scientific and artistic scrutiny is considerable. (Crispin & Gilmore, 2014, p. 12)
In light of this, the research stands to gain from using multiple external perspectives, allowing for a higher degree of artistic scrutiny.
Through the creative process, I often forget or overlook things that seem trivial to me, chalking it up to “that’s how it should be” or “that’s how I always do it”. However, to others, these same elements could have a significant impact, becoming a defining features of what they experienced. In an attempt to bring light on these aspects, I will be using CRP after creating my songs as a means of highlighting these areas.
Critical response process is a method of eliciting feedback from peers in order to further one’s creative expression and process in any artistic form, from dance to music. It proposes a set of four core steps for the process with participants split into three roles (described below). The artist asks for feedback guided by a “facilitator”. This allows for feedback that more adequately benefits the artist, enabling them to push their thinking forwards. The process is described as being experimental in nature (Lerman, 2003, pp. 10-11), making it relevant for artistic research.
CRP is broken into three roles: 1) the artist, 2) the facilitator, and 3) the responders. The artist’s role is to share their works in progress attempting to find ways to grow and evolve. The artist should be at a stage where they are able to question their work in a somewhat public setting, being able and willing to hear critical comments on their work. The Facilitator plays the role of a manager, helping the artist express ideas and understand responses, whilst keeping the responders on track, helping them formulate meaningful questions/comments, and ensuring they stick to the guidelines presented. The responder’s role is to listen to, read, watch, or in general experience the artist’s presented work. Their job is helping the artist expand their creative horizon by providing statements of meaning, responses to questions, neutral questions, and consented opinions on the work in progress. They are meant to help the artist reevaluate their artistic process, providing valuable information on how their work communicates to a general audience. (Lerman, 2003, pp. 14-15)
In this step the artist/creator asks questions related to musical decisions, specific sections of the work, or possible steps forward. These questions aim to help clarify what is meaningful for them within the work, and what elements they might want feedback on. Lerman states that the specificity of the questions asked can elicit different answers, noting that an artist should be wary of asking questions in the furthest extremes of both general and specific questions. A really general question like “what did you think?” could lead to the discussion including any topic as fair game, or on the contrary a verry specific question like “did you like what I cut the beat of in the outro?” could lead to an opinion-based poll. One should rather aim to ask questions that allow the responders to voice exactly what they think allowing them to mention specifics themselves (Lerman, 2003, p. 20).
In step three of CRP the dialog is reversed back to the responders, where responders can ask informative or factual neutral questions. Lerman gives us an example of an opinionated question being reformulated into a neutral question, changing “why is the cake so dry?” into “what texture were you going for?”. These questions intend to clarify the artists thinking, intent and creative process. Neutral questions are important as they help ward off defensiveness within the artist. Asking neutral questions can be difficult as one often embeds an opinion within the question without intending too, however the act of forming a neutral question can allow the responder to acknowledge the personal values present. Some examples of neutral are “Can you share how you were thinking about volume and dynamics in this piece?” or “How would you describe the kind of sound you were going for in this composition?” (Lerman, 2003, pp. 20-21)
Once the artist has shared/presented their work, the responders (a panel of experts) share their statements of meaning. Commenting on what they experienced, noting what brought meaning or what was stimulating, evocative, compelling, delightful, different or unique. This could be noting a memorable melody or an interesting connection between a piece and a personal experience. It could also be small moments of interest, for example, the use of a specific lyrics. It is during this first step that one can come to notice the different values each responder may have.
The facilitator starts this step by providing sentence starters for the responders, for example “I appreciated…,” “I found it meaningful when…,” or “It surprised me when...” this will help provide entry points for the responders (Lerman, 2003, p, 19).
In this final step the facilitator opens up for opinions, where the responders must follow a set structure for their questions asking for permission from the artist to state their question. Asking for example, “I have an opinion on ……….”, thus giving consent to the artist, allowing them to prepare and consider whether they are willing and or ready to hear an opinion in this area. The artist may already be aware of the manner he/she articulates the lyrics, but having made aesthetic choices, they may not want or feel the need to hear opinions about these elements. During this step, the responders take their experience from step three and form an opinion around this, forcing the responder to slow down and think about the target of their opinion rather than listing off a bunch of unfocused ideas that would be difficult for the artist to implement, let alone remember (Lerman, 2003, p. 22).
I will be using CRP as a guideline and inspiration for how I conduct my panel of experts. I will be taking on the role of both artist and facilitator, which may present challenges. However, since the topic is quite complex, I believe this suits my research better. In order to mitigate biases that might arise from assuming both the artist and facilitator roles, I have produced my questions for the relevant steps ahead of time:
Step two artist's questions:
- Did one of the two pieces presented stand out to you? If so, in what way?
- Did you observe any differences in the lyrics between the two songs and their messages, did it feel cohesive and clear?
- Did you relate to the songs? If so, did you relate equally to both?
- Did the songs succeed in convincing you they felt “real”? Did both feel equally “real”?
- Did you observe anything interesting with the flow and delivery? If so, did you observe any differences?
Digital Audio Workspace (Ableton Live): I have always preferred and used Ableton Live for producing music, something about the workflow just fits my creative process. Ableton Live is described as “fast, fluid and flexible software for music creation and performance” (Ableton, n.d.).
Sound card (Appolon twin x): One uses an audio interface in order to record audio from an analogue device like a microphone, and to play audio on speakers. I use an audio interface from Universal Audio that which “lets you record through plug-ins from Neve, API, Manley, Auto-Tune, and more without latency” (Universal Audio, n.d.).
Autotune (Antares Realtime Advanced): I have tested several autotunes throughout my career, and a reoccurring issue I found with some autotunes on the market, is their lack of live processing. Antares’s autotune works in collaboration with Universal Audio to process the vocals on the soundcard instead of using the computer, this allows me both to use it live when recording and when preforming a concert. Universal Audio describes Antares as “the ultimate ultra-low-latency tuning solution for Apollo and Arrow interfaces—optimized for instant live vocal tracking in the studio or on stage” (Universal Audio, n.d.).
Microphone (Aston spirit): The microphone I use is describe as “a high-performance, switchable pattern, large diaphragm condenser microphone utilizing a 1 gold evaporated capsule” (Aston Microphones, n.d.).
AI: I have used both ChatGPT based on GPT-4-turbo and the language model Claude 3.7 Sonnet as a tool for spelling, grammar correction, synonyms suggestions, and reference formatting. The model was not used to write any sections of the research itself.