Abstract As artistic research grows into an established mode of academic inquiry, it has become possible to distinguish a ruling metaparadigm which we denote as the practice paradigm. This paradigm is to a large extent based on the argument that artistic research is not equipped to produce standalone theories, but instead offers ways to develop and disseminate knowledge through sensory media and embodiment. The foundations for this argument are not grounded in actual expressions of artistic reasoning and reflection in a wider perspective. The enforcement of this paradigm furthermore concerns the challenges that maturing artistic research faces in co-existing with scientific research in institutional settings. We argue that the fixation on personal practice imposes unnecessary restrictions on artistic researchers and that the reduction of exploratory artmaking to applied practices is superficial, as it ignores the way artistic theorizing has tended to be done earlier in non-institutional settings. In this position paper, we review epistemological and methodological claims made by influential promoters of the metaparadigm and critique the justification of the approach. Moreover, we propose a way to move beyond the practice paradigm by reconnecting exploratory artmaking to a kind of artistic theorization that generates creative frameworks for conceptual ideas, styles, and formats rather than a catalogue of implemented works by individual practitioners. We also speculate that the articulation of the philosophical underpinnings of artistic research in its first phase might be a premature response to a theoretical crisis in the arts in general—a crisis that indeed calls for creative solutions, but has so far been met primarily with a defense of practice.
Rylander et al. (Fri,) studied this question.