Artistic Creation is Artistic Research: Substantiation through a Bimodal Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this dissertation is to disentangle and arrange a number of issues particular to the sphere of activity designated as artistic research. A bimodal conception of artistic research is proposed as a framework by which confusions in the discourse and in applications of artistic research may be avoided or resolved. Mode one indicates that artistic creation is in most instances ipso facto artistic research. A philosophical substantiation is offered for this claim. In brief, a work of art is considered to be a state of affairs, to use Wittgenstein’s terminology, of the artistic kind. The creation of a state of affairs of the artistic kind and the formulation of propositional belief about that state of affairs are claimed to be necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for artistic research to occur. A state of affairs of the artistic kind provides the artistic component of artistic research; however, the state of affairs in and of itself does not normally convey propositional belief and therefore does not satisfy the condition of research in artistic research. For artistic research to take place, propositional belief about the state of affairs of the artistic kind must be formulated. The site of the initiation of the research component of artistic research is thus located. In normal artistic practices, the class of activities commonly seen as art and the class of activities commonly seen as research exhibit significant class overlap and are inseparably intertwined in the vast majority of artistic creations. Mode two indicates delimited forms of artistic research. Mode two artistic research does not accept that the conditions of mode one are sufficient for artistic research and subsequently requires further epistemic justification or criteria. The further justification or criteria delimits the form of artistic research, usually within particular contexts for particular purposes. Clarity in the discourse of artistic research is promoted when the modes are clearly differentiated, when their purposes are stated, and when the underlying presuppositions held by their proponents are revealed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".