In 2007 Terry Flaxton was awarded an AHRC Creative Research Fellowship which was titled: ‘High Definition Imaging: An Investigation in the Actual, the Virtual and the Hyper Real’. What follows, though Post-Doctoral, is a model for the construction of a PhD Practice as Research methodology. In this approach the critical thing is to identify you research question which fits within a research framework.
To do so you must identify a central passion where you suspect new knowledge can be revealed - because you will have to live with this for several years. The research question that follows from this passion should not be too limiting, but be loose enough to then allow a series of sub-questions. The sub-questions can then be a site of practical exploration where the question itself stimulates an artistic or practical response.
If you get this right, then creativity can flow. In all the examples below the intention was to reveal new knowledge by making art that was intended for exhibition, where exhibition was intended to reveal information about the initial production of the work as a hypothesis for exploring an element of the core research question, (and specifically the sub-question). When all of that was achieved then critical reflection could follow. With that in mind read the following where you then translate from my example into your own creative practice - bear in mind this exploration began in 2006 - 2007 when High Definition was still a dream of technicians.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
The aim of the research was to investigate how increases in image resolution is affecting the nature of art and entertainment from the point of view of both practitioners and audiences. Artefacts were produced to investigate the following research question:
· ‘In what ways will the advent of high resolution imaging change the work produced in the convergence of art and visual technologies and consequently, our experience of that work?’
To address the core research question a series of 4 Outputs or 'Practice as Research Portfolios' were created, comprised of the following methodology:
· one or more ‘artefacts’ were created to respond to some aspect of the research question, (in many cases an installation)
· these were exhibited to audiences, where engagement time was monitored to evaluate if they increased as resolution increases in succeeding exhibitions
· peer reviewed articles critically reflected on the process
· research was presented at conferences
It was proposed from the beginning that each new artefact would be a building block in the research as a whole, so each work was developed with an additive proposition to the original question. The variety of subject matter was intended to reveal whether or not it was simply an increase of resolution increased immersion and therefore engagement times or whether subject matter was a factor in increasing or decreasing immersion.
A 36 month work schedule was proposed to answer the core research question through 4 practice as research portfolios.
O/P 1 High Definition Video and Experiences of Immediacy and the Environment investigated the capture of images of the immediate environment and the effects of projection of those images on familiar objects domestically close to us
O/P 2 High Resolution Motion Images and the Iconic Image moved from images of the domestic environment to images of the wider surrounding environment to see if the use of higher resolutions of capture could then also display images at higher resolutions than we were used to seeing and whether this use could deepen audience engagement
O/P 3 Images of High Resolution Portraiture furthers the course set by O/P’s 1 and 2 by examining whether increases of resolution with life sized moving image portraiture could also increase engagement times (9 projects and 237 subjects on three different continents)
O/P 4 Understanding Digital Cinematography differs from the above as it was intended to deliver the new knowledge gained by the previous research – but instead, because it comprised of a set of interviews with those people who are leading the field – it too delivered new knowledge by dissipating speculation around the new medium. This is comprised of a series of online interviews accompanied by text based resources.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was concerned with the technicalities and aesthetics of images in a new medium. In proposing this research to the AHRC I had devised a 36 month schedule which would involve creating a series of artefacts where the significance of the results with regard to whether or not audience engagement was increased produced were then re-encoded in each new artefact and exhibition – further critical reflection would occur and outputs discussed at conference.
If this process delivered empirical knowledge then that would not detract from the art produced, but would emphasise that the clarity of an image was a key immersion point. ‘High Resolution Motion Imaging and the Iconic Image’ was designed to carry the research forward from images of objects or white goods surrounding us to the world that exists in ‘the distance’ which could be brought up close by not only optics, but by burrowing into the digits.
Visitors comments books become more important if the position were taken that the lives of others can be enhanced by exposure to art. Also issues developed relating to the subsidiary question, that if the medium were transcended and the art once contained within what was then a new medium (i.e. television, photography or film), could familiar images be redelivered within a new medium with greater engagement? Equally, what if the audience gaze were not directed to the world about them, but images of themselves as reflected in the portraits – and in fact, the reciprocal gaze of others? So recording audience response might say something above and beyond a simple measure of whether longer engagement had occurred, with higher rather than lower resolution images.
This was not to be a ‘scientific’ study; methods of examination were employed that were appropriate to the creative nature of the project.
To address the core research question Flaxton followed previous research and practices enquiries with ‘Practice as Research Portfolios’, but then systematised this with the following methodology:
· create one or more ‘artefacts’ to respond to some aspect of the research question, (in many cases an installation)
· then exhibit these to audiences at lower, then higher resolutions, engagement time was monitored (and if the work were produced within a community exhibit this work to them, first – plus exhibit simiar artefacts to them too)
· audience response was collected in visitors comments books to correlate and then examine if what had been observed of audience behaviour was reflected in their comments
· peer reviewed articles critically reflected on the process
· research was presented at conferences with further and deeper reflection
As each new artefact would become a building block in the research as a whole, then each new work was developed with an added proposition of knowledge gained within previous works. As an example from the first Output, ‘In Other People’s Skins’ was designed to invoke both individual and group participation. 5 dinner parties were filmed from above with different communities eating indigenous foods, then the resultant edit of those 5 meals was projected down on to a table of the same size which was covered by a white tablecloth (the screen). 12 white plates were placed to catch the images of the food and 12 seats were positioned around the table to allow the audience to interact with the installation. This installation originally showed at several exhibitions at lower levels of resolution then toured for 15 weeks through 6 cathedrals and Bath Abbey in a black light proof tent at higher resolution. Signs asked the Audience to enter, sit and touch. The artefact was to go through several iterations during the life of the AHRC award, included a single dining experience with one dinner party of 8 people appearing as virtual guests.
A simple question was continuously proposed and examined: “Would the audience enter the spirit of the work and stay longer at higher resolutions than with projections of the work at standard resolution?” Established through the above methodology, the answer was that people did in fact stay longer at the installation when the resolution was set at High Definition as opposed to standard definition. The research now continues in many other forms.
Link to Flaxton's work in general
Examples of other Work
To do so you must identify a central passion where you suspect new knowledge can be revealed - because you will have to live with this for several years. The research question that follows from this passion should not be too limiting, but be loose enough to then allow a series of sub-questions. The sub-questions can then be a site of practical exploration where the question itself stimulates an artistic or practical response.
If you get this right, then creativity can flow. In all the examples below the intention was to reveal new knowledge by making art that was intended for exhibition, where exhibition was intended to reveal information about the initial production of the work as a hypothesis for exploring an element of the core research question, (and specifically the sub-question). When all of that was achieved then critical reflection could follow. With that in mind read the following where you then translate from my example into your own creative practice - bear in mind this exploration began in 2006 - 2007 when High Definition was still a dream of technicians.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
The aim of the research was to investigate how increases in image resolution is affecting the nature of art and entertainment from the point of view of both practitioners and audiences. Artefacts were produced to investigate the following research question:
· ‘In what ways will the advent of high resolution imaging change the work produced in the convergence of art and visual technologies and consequently, our experience of that work?’
To address the core research question a series of 4 Outputs or 'Practice as Research Portfolios' were created, comprised of the following methodology:
· one or more ‘artefacts’ were created to respond to some aspect of the research question, (in many cases an installation)
· these were exhibited to audiences, where engagement time was monitored to evaluate if they increased as resolution increases in succeeding exhibitions
· peer reviewed articles critically reflected on the process
· research was presented at conferences
It was proposed from the beginning that each new artefact would be a building block in the research as a whole, so each work was developed with an additive proposition to the original question. The variety of subject matter was intended to reveal whether or not it was simply an increase of resolution increased immersion and therefore engagement times or whether subject matter was a factor in increasing or decreasing immersion.
A 36 month work schedule was proposed to answer the core research question through 4 practice as research portfolios.
O/P 1 High Definition Video and Experiences of Immediacy and the Environment investigated the capture of images of the immediate environment and the effects of projection of those images on familiar objects domestically close to us
O/P 2 High Resolution Motion Images and the Iconic Image moved from images of the domestic environment to images of the wider surrounding environment to see if the use of higher resolutions of capture could then also display images at higher resolutions than we were used to seeing and whether this use could deepen audience engagement
O/P 3 Images of High Resolution Portraiture furthers the course set by O/P’s 1 and 2 by examining whether increases of resolution with life sized moving image portraiture could also increase engagement times (9 projects and 237 subjects on three different continents)
O/P 4 Understanding Digital Cinematography differs from the above as it was intended to deliver the new knowledge gained by the previous research – but instead, because it comprised of a set of interviews with those people who are leading the field – it too delivered new knowledge by dissipating speculation around the new medium. This is comprised of a series of online interviews accompanied by text based resources.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was concerned with the technicalities and aesthetics of images in a new medium. In proposing this research to the AHRC I had devised a 36 month schedule which would involve creating a series of artefacts where the significance of the results with regard to whether or not audience engagement was increased produced were then re-encoded in each new artefact and exhibition – further critical reflection would occur and outputs discussed at conference.
If this process delivered empirical knowledge then that would not detract from the art produced, but would emphasise that the clarity of an image was a key immersion point. ‘High Resolution Motion Imaging and the Iconic Image’ was designed to carry the research forward from images of objects or white goods surrounding us to the world that exists in ‘the distance’ which could be brought up close by not only optics, but by burrowing into the digits.
Visitors comments books become more important if the position were taken that the lives of others can be enhanced by exposure to art. Also issues developed relating to the subsidiary question, that if the medium were transcended and the art once contained within what was then a new medium (i.e. television, photography or film), could familiar images be redelivered within a new medium with greater engagement? Equally, what if the audience gaze were not directed to the world about them, but images of themselves as reflected in the portraits – and in fact, the reciprocal gaze of others? So recording audience response might say something above and beyond a simple measure of whether longer engagement had occurred, with higher rather than lower resolution images.
This was not to be a ‘scientific’ study; methods of examination were employed that were appropriate to the creative nature of the project.
To address the core research question Flaxton followed previous research and practices enquiries with ‘Practice as Research Portfolios’, but then systematised this with the following methodology:
· create one or more ‘artefacts’ to respond to some aspect of the research question, (in many cases an installation)
· then exhibit these to audiences at lower, then higher resolutions, engagement time was monitored (and if the work were produced within a community exhibit this work to them, first – plus exhibit simiar artefacts to them too)
· audience response was collected in visitors comments books to correlate and then examine if what had been observed of audience behaviour was reflected in their comments
· peer reviewed articles critically reflected on the process
· research was presented at conferences with further and deeper reflection
As each new artefact would become a building block in the research as a whole, then each new work was developed with an added proposition of knowledge gained within previous works. As an example from the first Output, ‘In Other People’s Skins’ was designed to invoke both individual and group participation. 5 dinner parties were filmed from above with different communities eating indigenous foods, then the resultant edit of those 5 meals was projected down on to a table of the same size which was covered by a white tablecloth (the screen). 12 white plates were placed to catch the images of the food and 12 seats were positioned around the table to allow the audience to interact with the installation. This installation originally showed at several exhibitions at lower levels of resolution then toured for 15 weeks through 6 cathedrals and Bath Abbey in a black light proof tent at higher resolution. Signs asked the Audience to enter, sit and touch. The artefact was to go through several iterations during the life of the AHRC award, included a single dining experience with one dinner party of 8 people appearing as virtual guests.
A simple question was continuously proposed and examined: “Would the audience enter the spirit of the work and stay longer at higher resolutions than with projections of the work at standard resolution?” Established through the above methodology, the answer was that people did in fact stay longer at the installation when the resolution was set at High Definition as opposed to standard definition. The research now continues in many other forms.
Link to Flaxton's work in general
Examples of other Work
