La interacción entre los servicios públicos, el mercado privado y el sector informal

A critical element of the iterative nature of our creative practice and research is refl ection on results. Our experience confi rms the fi ndings of Donald Schön that refl ection in action is a critical element in developing understanding (Schön 1987). Interestingly Schön’s work also grew out of exploring how technologies precipitate innovations and in trying to understand how people accommodate these (Schön 1967).

In general, artistic knowledge is often intuitive and refl ection may not occur naturally. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, practical knowledge is inherent in doing and is often considered implicit and as such may not be identifi ed or valued without explicit attention paid to it. It is common for arts practitioners to have signifi cant knowledge without necessarily being able to adequately describe that knowledge. In other words, knowledge embed-ded in practice is often personal and ineffable. In order to make this personal

digital media arts 163 knowledge more generally useful a process of refl ection and contextualisation is often required. Refl ection can help to fi nd patterns that make this personal knowledge more generally applicable and contextualisation helps to place those fi ndings within a broader history of accumulated knowledge. These processes are important because they are essential to transforming personal knowledge into communal knowledge. This knowledge can be accessed through the various presentations of the work – as art works, code libraries, algorithms, written descriptions, critical analysis and commentaries and so on. An integral part of research is this transmission of personal knowledge and understanding that has some novel and general application into communal knowledge.

Shareable knowledge is often expressed as a method, process or theory.

The production and dissemination of theory is a distinguishing differentiation between our practice-led research and conventional artistic practice. In our research, theories are frequently associated with patterns of usage, that is with techniques or practices we use regularly. These regular patterns of usage often indicate areas of particular interest in our work and it is through introspection that these patterns may develop into a more general theory or into new tech-niques and habits. These generalisations, or theories, invariably fi nd their way back into our practice. We feel that this iterative process between expression and refl ection is essential to all research and is integral to arts practice.

Experience of the creative output or artefact is also of great importance to understanding the knowledge generated by the research. Firstly, the artefact provides evidence of the knowledge discovered. It stands as a demonstration of the theory and is available as a reference for further investigation and veri-fi cation. The artefact helps to make the ideas explicit. Secondly, the artefact provides a stimulus for engagement with the knowledge gained. The artefact is integral in communicating the ideas of the research in all its richness and in making the theory available to a wider audience who might otherwise not engage with knowledge in the abstract. In a very real sense practice makes an excellent partner to research, because the benefi ts of practice-led research fl ow in both directions.

conclusion

In this chapter we have outlined our approach to research using our live-coding performance practice as a case study. We have argued, based on our experience, that while research and creative practice are not the same activity, there is signifi cant intellectual and cultural benefi t to be gained through the integration of research and practice.

Our practice of live-coding has involved both the building and using of digital tools and the development of new representations of musical processes.

164 andrew r. brown and andrew sorensen

We have argued that this provides a way of exploring both the possibilities of established processes and innovation through the construction of new proc-esses. The ease of controlling digital systems through programming software makes this a particularly attractive option for digital media practitioners. The demands of the live-coding performances we undertake provide hard con-straints that serve to propel our work forward and add rigour to the results. In addition, the ability to build new software tools enables an agile approach where avenues for investigation can be explored or discarded with minimal effort.

Practice-led research, as we conduct it, is hierarchically iterative with each large step encompassing numerous smaller steps. Progress and direction are guided by aesthetic judgements, enabled by efforts to engage in a healthy dialogue between our own assessments, the opinions of others in our fi eld and those of the broader public. This critical dialogue is facilitated by making our work available in a variety of formats and forums, including recordings of crea-tive work, code examples, academic and informal writing and, especially, live performance. The documentation of our work in these many forms facilitates refl ections on the work that lead to the observations of patterns and theories, as well as highlighting opportunities that lead to new work.

So what drives our work? In the end it is our creative desire for artistic expressivity that results in an interplay between actions and ideas. And it is our desire for a productive dialogue with others around this expressivity that leads us to the extensive documentation, refl ection and dialogue that positions our practice within a research framework.

The feedback loop between refl ection and action, between speculation and experimentation, is fundamental to research in many disciplines and it is an important feature of our work. We suggest that a deliberate and public inter-play between imagining and expressing is generally productive as a method for practice and research in the digital media arts.

acknowledgements

This research was conducted with support from the Australasian CRC for Interaction Design (ACID), which is established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre programme.

references

Boden, M. (1990), The Creative Mind, London: Cardinal.

Brown, A. R. (2006), ‘Code jamming’, M/C Journal, 9 (6), available at: http://

journal.media-culture.org.au/0612/03-brown.php.

digital media arts 165 Brown, A. R. and A. Sorensen (2007), ‘Dynamic media arts programming in

Impromptu’, Proceedings of Creativity and Cognition 2007, Washington, DC:

ACM Press, pp. 245–6.

Brün, H. (1989), ‘Composer’s input outputs music’, in R. J. Heifetz (ed.), On the Wires of Our Nerves: The Art of Electroacoustic Music, Caranbury, NJ:

Associated University Presses, pp. 133–47.

Dewey, J. (1934), Art as Experience, New York: Putman.

Downton, P. (2003), Design Research, Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Edmonds, E. (2004), ‘Interactive media: on modes of interaction in art systems’, in R. Wissler, B. Haseman, S.-A. Wallace and M. Keane (eds), Innovation in Australian Arts, Media, Design: Fresh Challenges for the Tertiary Sector, Flaxton, QLD: Post Pressed, pp. 73–86.

Kay, A. and A. Goldberg (1977), ‘Personal dynamic media’, Computer, 10 (3), 31–41.

McLean, A. (2004), Hacking Perl in Nightclubs, O’Reilly perl.com (cited 1 May 2005), available at: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/08/31/livecode.

html.

Schön, D. A. (1967), Technology and Change, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Schön, D. A. (1987), Educating the Refl ective Practitioner, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Sorensen, A. (2005), ‘Impromptu: an interactive programming environment for composition and performance’, Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Music Conference 2005, Brisbane, QLD: ACMA, pp. 149–53.

Sorensen, A. and A. R. Brown (2007), ‘aa-cell in practice: an approach to musical live-coding’, Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, Copenhagen: ICMA, pp. 292–9.

Sorensen, A. and A. R. Brown (2008), ‘A computational model for the genera-tion of orchestral music in the Germanic symphonic tradigenera-tion: a progress report’, Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Music Conference 2008, Sydney: ACMA, pp. 78–84.

Vella, R. (2003), ‘Artistic practice as research’, Proceedings of the AARME XXVth Annual Conference, Brisbane, QLD: Australian Association for Research in Music Education, pp. 1–14.

chapter 8

Mariposa: The Story of New Work