This text is a reflection on my choice of methods used during the project. For a more detailed description of how each method was applied, see especially the Analysis text and in general the texts about each album. These are all accessible from the front page.
As a summary of the other texts in the project, I would say that my methods could be listed as the following:
Mapping/Generalising: A mapping of already existing activities and tendencies.
Mapping/Hypostasis: Mapping of not yet created works or of possible future works.
(The word ‘hypostatizing’ technically/etymologically means (incorrectly) assuming that something that only exists as a thought also exists in the objective reality. But I have chosen to look at hypostasis as an applicable creative tool: as the activity of creating something based on the assumption that it could theoretically exist. I also find the term fitting, because the word in its connotation ‘an excessive objectification’ in its own way implies the pitfalls, which could be present in this type process).
Cataloguing: As an attempt to cover or “exhaust” a field of possibilities. To fill out the map of the previously undiscovered areas with artistic activities.
“Conscious osmosis”: From the realization that the material emerging during improvisations often cannot come into existence just because of an ideal decision about what you want to create. Instead, in “conscious osmosis”, a number of activities are chosen in the artist's daily routines, with the aim that the elements you want to occur in the intuitive moment, actually can occur as natural impulses.
Iterative processes: “Feedback loop”, especially in connection to my preparations for the solo recording, but basically as a continuous cycle in the whole project.
Mirroring the field: My interviews with international colleagues.
The abovementioned methods have all been described in further detail elsewhere in this exposition. I think that they have all been extremely useful and that their possible limitations lie not within the specific methodology, but in a more general or cosmic meta question about whether it is at all optimal to throw such a sharp light on some hypersensitive processes without the risk of burning away the magic.
This is a central question in the project and in many projects like this, but it can barely be discussed within the rationale the question is located in. It is a question about artistic intuition versus conscious, project-based work, about sensations versus methodologies, about the relationship between creativity and the hyperarticulated linguistification, that often occur within Artistic Research:
Is it possible to linguistically describe the schism (or the fight) between intuition and rationality without either using (and thus assuming) the exact type of linguistic rationality that we were about to question or deviate into a metaphorical answer that makes the discussion a poem (often about the unique characteristics of romantic inspirations)?
I do not know. But I will answer it from an experience perspective and thus specifically from within this project: I feel that through the project, based on a number of clearly defined work dogmas, I have expanded and renewed my musical language from the inside. So far, so good. But I will never rule out that this could have happened in other (just as interesting) ways, if the same time and energy had been invested in even more intuitive processes.