The transformative potential of creative art practices in the context of interdisciplinary research
Abstract
A growing body of literature addressing the need for educational innovations has also stressed the value of interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate art into teaching and learning. This paper aims to extend educators’ understanding of art–science interactions by presenting an empirical study that explores a unique art residency program created on the campus of a university that specializes in science and technology. The study reviews the art practices of three contemporary artists who participated in a program developed in conjunction with an interdisciplinary research project seeking ways to build an ecologically sustainable community and operated by a renewable energy resource-based economic system. Data that include observations, artist talks, and in-person interviews were collected from multiple sources during the residency to understand the distinguished processes involved in the development of individual art projects. A follow-up cross-case analysis revealed a few notable characteristics: connecting art with life through waste recycling, process-oriented practices highlighting resource circulation, and creating value using bricolage strategies. Regarding educational implications, discussions centered upon the potential transformational space identified from the creative art practices in the context of interdisciplinary research.
Article in English.
Kūrybinių meno praktikų transformacijos galimybės tarpdalykinių tyrimų kontekste
Santrauka
Vis augančiame kiekyje literatūros, kurioje dėmesys skiriamas švietimo inovacijų poreikiui, taip pat pabrėžiama tarpdalykinių metodų, įtraukiančių meną į mokymą ir mokymąsi, vertė. Šiame straipsnyje siekiama praplėsti meno ir mokslo sąveikos supratimą, pristatant empirinį tyrimą, kuriame nagrinėjama unikali meno rezidentūros programa, sukurta universiteto, besispecializuojančio mokslo ir technologijų srityje, miestelyje. Tyrime apžvelgiamos trijų šiuolaikinių menininkų, dalyvavusių programoje, sukurtoje kartu su dalykinio tyrimo projektu, meno praktikos, ieškant būdų suformuoti ekologine prasme tvarią bendruomenę, kurią valdytų atsinaujinančios energijos šaltiniais grindžiama ekonomikos sistema. Duomenys, apimantys stebėjimus, menininkų pokalbius ir interviu su asmenimis, buvo surinkti iš daugelio šaltinių, siekiant suprasti atskirus procesus, kuriuos apima individualių meno projektų plėtra. Tolesnė kryžminė analizė atskleidė keletą įsidėmėtinų charakteristikų: menas susiejamas su gyvenimu perdirbant atliekas, į procesą orientuotos praktikos pabrėžia išteklių cirkuliavimą, o vertė kuriama pasitelkiant brikoliažo strategijas. Atsižvelgiant į švietimo reikšmę, diskusijos, kuriose susitelkiama į galimą transformacijos erdvą, išsirutuliojo iš kūrybinių meno praktikų tarpdalykinių tyrimų kontekste.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: meno rezidentūra, šiuolaikiniai menininkai, kūrybinė praktika, švietimo inovacijos, transformacijos erdvė.
Keyword : art residency, contemporary artists, creative practice, educational innovations, transformational space
How to Cite
Paek, K.-M. (2019). The transformative potential of creative art practices in the context of interdisciplinary research. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.9701
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Baik, Y. (2010). Formative strategy and methodology of process art. Journal of Basic Design and Art, 11(3), 197-205.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Cho, J. (2017a). Feces Standard Money (FSM). Edge. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/response-de-tail/26660
Cho, J. (2017b). Philosophy of convergence research: “Science Walden”, convergence research project of science and art. Convergence Research Review, 3(6), 33-64.
Cho, S.-M. (2017). Craft as a process and practice: bricolage as framework related to expansion of craft. The Journal of Aesthetics and Science of Art, 51, 336-367. https://doi.org/10.17527/JASA.51.0.11
Curtis, D. J., Reid, N., & Ballard, G. (2012). Communicating ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecology and Society, 17(2). Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art3/
Dezeuze, A. (2008). Assemblage, bricolage, and the practice of everyday life. Art Journal, 67(1), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.2008.10791292
Gray, T., & Thomson, C. (2016). Transforming environmental awareness of students through the arts and place-based pedagogies. Learning Landscapes, 9(2), 239-260.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524733
Hudson, S. J. (2001). Challenges for environmental education: issues and ideas for the 21st century. Environmental education, a vital component of efforts to solve environmental problems, must stay relevant to the needs and interests of the community and yet constantly adapt to the rapidly changing social and technological landscape. BioScience, 51(4), 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0283:CFEEIA]2.0.CO;2
Jacobson, S. K., Seavey, J. R., & Mueller, R. C. (2016). Integrated science and art education for creative climate change communication. Ecology and Society, 21(3). Retrieved from https://www.ecology-andsociety.org/vol21/iss3/art30/
Jeon, W.-G., & Paek, K.-M. (2018). Personal interview [unpublished source].
Jeon, W.-G. (2018). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Kim, A. (1998). Soo-Ja Kim: a solitary performance with old fabric. Retrieved from http://www.kimsooja.com/texts/airyung.html
Kim, S. (2019). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Kwak, Y.-J., & Paek, K.-M. (2019). Personal interview [unpublished source].
Lee, B., Fillis, I., & Lehman, K. (2018). Art, science and organizational interactions: exploring the value of artist residencies on campus. Journal of Business Research, 85, 444-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.022
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Lim, S.-K. (2018). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity – levels of reality. Logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 1, 17-32. https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0009
Paek, K. (2019). Artists’ creative contributions in the context of interdisciplinary research. Creativity Studies, 12(1). 131-145. Retrieved from https://journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/CS/article/view/9141
Robertson, J., & McDaniel, C. (2017). Themes of contemporary art: visual art after 1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steelman, T. A., Andrews, E., Baines, S., Bharadwaj, L., Bjornson, E. R., Bradford, L., Cardinal, K., Carriere, G., Fresque-Baxter, J., Jardine, T. D., MacColl, I., Macmillan, S., Marten, J., Orosz, C., Reed, M. G., Rose, I., Shmon, K., Shantz, S., Staples, K., Strickert, G., & Voyageur, M. (2018). Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustainability science. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11625-018-0644-4.pdf
Tate. (2019). Art term: bricolage. Retrieved from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/b/bricolage
Timm-Bottos, J., & Reilly, R. C. (2015). Learning in third spaces: community art studio as storefront university classroom. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1–2), 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9688-5
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Cho, J. (2017a). Feces Standard Money (FSM). Edge. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/response-de-tail/26660
Cho, J. (2017b). Philosophy of convergence research: “Science Walden”, convergence research project of science and art. Convergence Research Review, 3(6), 33-64.
Cho, S.-M. (2017). Craft as a process and practice: bricolage as framework related to expansion of craft. The Journal of Aesthetics and Science of Art, 51, 336-367. https://doi.org/10.17527/JASA.51.0.11
Curtis, D. J., Reid, N., & Ballard, G. (2012). Communicating ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecology and Society, 17(2). Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art3/
Dezeuze, A. (2008). Assemblage, bricolage, and the practice of everyday life. Art Journal, 67(1), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.2008.10791292
Gray, T., & Thomson, C. (2016). Transforming environmental awareness of students through the arts and place-based pedagogies. Learning Landscapes, 9(2), 239-260.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524733
Hudson, S. J. (2001). Challenges for environmental education: issues and ideas for the 21st century. Environmental education, a vital component of efforts to solve environmental problems, must stay relevant to the needs and interests of the community and yet constantly adapt to the rapidly changing social and technological landscape. BioScience, 51(4), 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0283:CFEEIA]2.0.CO;2
Jacobson, S. K., Seavey, J. R., & Mueller, R. C. (2016). Integrated science and art education for creative climate change communication. Ecology and Society, 21(3). Retrieved from https://www.ecology-andsociety.org/vol21/iss3/art30/
Jeon, W.-G., & Paek, K.-M. (2018). Personal interview [unpublished source].
Jeon, W.-G. (2018). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Kim, A. (1998). Soo-Ja Kim: a solitary performance with old fabric. Retrieved from http://www.kimsooja.com/texts/airyung.html
Kim, S. (2019). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Kwak, Y.-J., & Paek, K.-M. (2019). Personal interview [unpublished source].
Lee, B., Fillis, I., & Lehman, K. (2018). Art, science and organizational interactions: exploring the value of artist residencies on campus. Journal of Business Research, 85, 444-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.022
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Lim, S.-K. (2018). Public talk for a society [unpublished source].
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity – levels of reality. Logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 1, 17-32. https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0009
Paek, K. (2019). Artists’ creative contributions in the context of interdisciplinary research. Creativity Studies, 12(1). 131-145. Retrieved from https://journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/CS/article/view/9141
Robertson, J., & McDaniel, C. (2017). Themes of contemporary art: visual art after 1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steelman, T. A., Andrews, E., Baines, S., Bharadwaj, L., Bjornson, E. R., Bradford, L., Cardinal, K., Carriere, G., Fresque-Baxter, J., Jardine, T. D., MacColl, I., Macmillan, S., Marten, J., Orosz, C., Reed, M. G., Rose, I., Shmon, K., Shantz, S., Staples, K., Strickert, G., & Voyageur, M. (2018). Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustainability science. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11625-018-0644-4.pdf
Tate. (2019). Art term: bricolage. Retrieved from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/b/bricolage
Timm-Bottos, J., & Reilly, R. C. (2015). Learning in third spaces: community art studio as storefront university classroom. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1–2), 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9688-5