I was browsing the Berlin Biennale Archive materials and saw that artists use sociological concepts for both explanation and creation of value there. This is very close to the concepts of social co-creation of value and the change of perspective from competency to activism in action research and design thinking.
Look at this for example:
THE 7TH BERLIN BIENNALE ARCHIVE: DRAFTSMEN'S CONGRESS, PAWEŁ ALTHAMER https://artmuseum.pl/en/archiwum/archiwum-7-berlin-biennale/2054?read=all
FORGET FEAR, Foreword by Artur Żmijewski http://blog.berlinbiennale.de/en/comments/forget-fear-a-foreword-by-artur-zmijewski-19528.html
Can you see any similarities and potential for cooperation? Is a joint conference of these artists and action/design researchers a good idea?
Richard Kleczek
Look also into my discussion: Does the new (attention: shocking) interpretation of Manet's Olympia develop knowledge about social processes of value creation?
ttps://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_new_attention_shocking_interpretation_of_Manets_Olympia_develop_knowledge_about_social_processes_of_value_creation
I dont think artists and scientists consciously see it or regard it as such. I think they simply see it as doing what they do best. So a good question is how conscious artists and scientists are about value and value creation methodology.
I also think they have already a variety of sources of knowledge and input. I dont think they use just one source. So good questions are what are their sources of knowledge and input, and if thete is still a gap - whether they feel there is something lacking or that can be improved still.
I think a middleman and networks/ networking (platforms) would be able to add value.
Dear Brian
I wonder to what extent your contribution corresponds to my question. I can not detect what is the relation of your answer to the content of the two sources I mentioned in my question. Your answer is abstract and skips the content (two revolutionary, anti-abstract, socially oriented artistic activities) from these two sources.
Anti-abstraction and social orientation are, in my opinion, two points of contemporary development in the science of creating values (Design Thinking, Action Research, Transformative Service Research, Social Practice Theory, Nordic School). That's why I asked my question.
Richard
NASA uses a sophisticated method that seems relevant for the science side. It begins by identifying risks that jeopardize safety, health or mission success , then determines whether remedies are available. If not, then it defines research objectives for new capability to fill the gap, and may commission the work and evaluate how well it fills the gap. The value of the successful research is risk reduction, not necessarily monetized. Less rigorous gap analyses, like Six-Sigma, are pretty common in other industries. They often estimate monetized value of solutions.
I have just submitted a paper on the sci-art cooperation. Here is the abstract. What do you think?
From reformers to living labs: radical changes (transformations) of practices in art and science.
Abstract
Living labs is a formula of cooperation between scientists and artists that combines new methods of project implementation, new research methods (action research and design-based research). The results of these projects represent radical changes in current practices. I begin by presenting what a radical change in art and science is all about. Next, I present interdisciplinary stakeholder workshops as a working method of living labs and social phenomenology as an interpretative and methodological basis for researching artistic practices in the humanities. In the last part, I present what and how scientists of humanities and artists can study in the living lab formula.
The originality / value of the research presented in the article lies in the indication of how artists and scientists can implement joint Sci-Art projects, based on the above-mentioned methods and the model of transformation of artistic practices.
Keywords: radical change (transformation), social practices, living lab, humanities, art, social phenomenology
Dear Dr. Kleczek, It is of course difficult to judge the final contents of a paper based on a tentative abstract. Nevertheless, I could not see the real novelty of your attempt and results. There are many papers published on living labs, researching in artistic practices, craft and science blending, as well as on epistemological/gnoseological issues. In which sense and how does your work go beyond the state of the art? What has been justified, validated and/or consolidated? What are the implications, restrictions, limitations? Wishing you a successful work, with best regards, I.H.
Dear Dr. Horvath
I think that the main limitation of the current research on art is the usage of individualistic interpretations of art value or excluding the value from the unit of analysis. I'll try to show in conceptual/qualitative study that using the Theory of Social Practices interpretations and concepts can give a new way to study the art and art-related practices' transformations, which are the relevant research problems in studies on art. The research made this way is scarce along to my knowledge. One of the best research of this type I know is:
Ernst, D., Esche, Ch., Erbslöh, U. (2016). “The art museum as lab to re-calibrate values towards sustainable development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 135: 1446-1460.
RK