MÉTODOS Y PROCEDIMIENTOS

This research builds on an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, bringing together philosophical perspectives with scientific concepts as well as theories regarding human response in general, and to art in particular. Findings from these fields are compared to historical and contemporary strategies employed by artists to engage viewers. These strategies are assessed for their potential to shed light on viewers’ active participation in the meaning-making process. It is hypothesised that otherwise divided perspectives from psychology (partly overlapping with biology and sociology), philosophy and art history, can yield a better understanding, definition, and clearer model of meaning-making, which can be brought to bear on contemporary art practice.

The research task is a philosophical one in so far as the definition of meaning and meaning-making is an epistemological question. Furthermore, the research topic is intertwined with existing philosophical discourses – as in Eco’s concept of the Open Work, post-structuralist debates on authorship and subjectivity and pragmatist art theories – that must be addressed. Finally, there is an apparent logical paradox to be solved: How can it be artists’ justified intention not to be asked for their intentions?

The research question is also intrinsically related to human psychology. It builds on assumptions of how people do respond to art. This premise would be untenable without empirical support. Furthermore, it is a question of a more psychological nature to identify strategies that influence the way viewers

process artworks. As a consequence, both philosophical and

psychological/scientific sources will be drawn upon.

Ideas are tested as they develop on the work of various contemporary artists including Tony Oursler, Alfredo Jaar, Tino Sehgal and others. These artists are exemplary in that they highlight questions that may have broad implications for our understanding of how contemporary art can enhance meaning-making.

1.5.1 Specific Methods

The investigative tools employed are mainly conventional methods of collecting, selecting, organising and comparing information available from various fields of study. Using examples from contemporary art, the similarities and differences between agendas, methods, and strategies of artists will be identified, assessed, and discussed. Claims made regarding the reception of art are aligned and developed in tandem with statements artists themselves have made as well as various viewer testimonials. Most of these testimonials were retrieved from the Internet and identified by the Google search engine using logical connectors. For instance, the concept ‘meaning to’ (somebody) [as opposed to ‘meaning of’ (something)] was explored in relation to experiences with art using the following algorithm:

“meaningful to me” OR “means to me” OR “meant to me” AND gallery OR exhibition OR museum AND art OR artwork OR painting OR installation OR sculpture OR “work of art”

Each search for a testimonial comprised a compulsory personal pronoun (‘I’, ‘my’, ‘me’), which limited the results mostly to personal statements made in blogs but also to sources like journalistic exhibition reviews and conference papers recounting personal experiences.

Using blog data for research purposes is an accepted method in the social sciences (Wakeford & Cohen 2008; Jones & Alony 2008) and yields similar benefits here. Testimonials regarding a wide range of questions are retrievable and can be treated as emerging ‘naturally’ rather than resulting from the interaction with interviewees.37 _{The disadvantages of this method are that}

researchers will often have little to no reliable data about the person whose statement they use (gender, age, occupation, etc.) and are limited to an ill- defined target group (‘people publishing their opinion on the web’). For the purpose of this thesis, these complications do not pose a problem since the testimonials are not used to cluster information or to identify potential consent, trends, or draw other generalisable conclusions. They demonstrate the

37 _{It is one of the vulnerabilities of data resulting from face-to-face interviews or questionnaires}

that interviewees often present themselves in a favourable light, a process sometimes referred to as ‘impression management’ or ‘social desirability bias’ (Tedeschi 1981).

possibility of certain kinds of experience with, or evaluation of, works of art, which would otherwise remain purely hypothetical. Using such examples is common in both philosophical and scientific fields. A single demonstrative instance is a necessary condition for a hypothesis’ validity. To seek further empirical evidence (for example from audience studies), extends this method and fosters the cogency of any newly proposed concept, a principle that does not exclude art theory. Nevertheless, anecdotal examples do not function as empirical evidence since the validity of the statements must remain unconfirmed. These examples thus function as thought experiments that examine and illustrate arguments in real-life situations.

1.5.2 Justification of the Methodology

It is one thing to argue that art and theory can benefit from empirical and scientific sources and another to prepare and filter such information in a thesis. The former is a question of opinion (addressed in 1.2.2 and 6.2.1), the latter, concerns the thesis’ methodological coherence. One discipline may take for granted what another questions, or define a term in an incompatible way. To account for this problem, some research premises and key terms have been defined in the previous section.

This thesis emerges as part of a practice-based PhD, which is a comparatively new field of study that has no universally accepted standards or methods in place. Moreover, many of the references used in this thesis are in themselves not easily classified as belonging to one discipline alone. The work draws, for example, on Wolfgang Iser’s reception theory in the field of literature, which is informed by hermeneutics, phenomenology and Gestalt psychology. John Dewey’s ‘Art as experience’ (another recurring reference) is as much influenced by bio-psychology as by philosophy and pedagogy. When psychologist Bjarne S. Funch presents his ‘existential phenomenological’ approach to art appreciation, he argues not unlike a philosopher.38 _{This thesis}

hopes that drawing on philosophical and scientific theories will reveal where

38 _{Funch mentioned briefly that his argument is based on interviews and introspective studies}

but provides no details regarding these sources (see chapter three). Funch assured, however, that he could have provided a separate chapter with empirical data (Funch 2013, personal communication).

they overlap, mutually enforce each other, and produce a sound argument that subscribes exclusively to neither.