This thesis will use Artistic Research as a method in order to compose music influenced by chamber music, to establish a signature sound through an extended chamber ensemble, and to explore collaborations between performers of diverse musical traditions.
In this chapter I will argue why I chose artistic research as my method; explore its fallacies, strengths and weaknesses and how they may affect my research.
In the chapter “Artistic research as/in composition”, Crispin writes about dilemmas traditionally arising when composers conduct research. While a composer might be systematic in the composing process, they might not necessarily use scientific methods. On the other hand, the outcomes might be dull and uninspired, if the “research-related methodology” is employed as a”‘stand-in” of a free, intuitive process of the artist. (Crispin, 2015, s. 319)
In other words, the usual compositional or artistic process does not in itself meet the prerequisites for a scientific process. Borgdorff writes: “Ideally speaking, theoretical distance implies a fundamental separation, and a certain distance, between the researcher and the research object.” (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 37). Getting too close to the subject simply risks the objectivity of the researcher. (Vassenden, 2013 in Haaland, 2020) However, as seen in the paragraph above, too great a distance can negatively affect artefactual success. Easier said, theory and practice do not divide up neatly. (Cook, 2015) Indeed, the risk of dividing them too greatly “is opposed to both practice generally and artwork specifically. While this is a common model in both academic and art circles it ignores both the practical elements of theoretical writing and the theoretical aspects of art practice.” (Candlin, 2000, p.10)
Artistic Research might be thought of as a means to bridge this gap, or of integrating two opposing poles.
The term Artistic Research arose in the early 1990:s, as the need to differentiate between different ways of researching arts grew. Christopher Frayling, who coined the term, differentiates between three different types of research within the artistic field: (a) Research into art, (b) Research through art (c) Research for art. (Frayling, 1993, p. 5) Borgdorff uses these categories as a starting point, but departs slightly and names them (a) research on the arts, (b) research for the arts,and (c) research in the arts. (Borgdorff, 2012, p. 37)
Research through Art:
“Although that is an idealisation, the regulative idea applying here is that the object of research remains untouched under the inquiring gaze of the researcher.”
We are familiar with this approach from the academic humanities disciplines, such as, to name an example, musicology.
Research for Art:
Research for art can be thought of as research in service to the arts. The product is not in focus, but rather the means that are needed to achieve certain ends.
“The research delivers, as it were, the tools and the knowledge of materials that are needed during the creative process or in the artistic product.”
Using Borgdorffs definitions and explanations, I myself would conclude: In artistic research, the act of creating art is central, but not enough in itself. Instead the artist-researcher takes on the act of being both artist and observer, combining a systematic scientific approach, self-reflection and the creation of an artwork.
Hannula et al use the term “inside-in”, when they argue that the practice of the artist is as much part of the research as the artworks. The artist has to be self-critical, and place his own work and processes into a larger context in history and experiences. The research is done from an inside perspective, by “doing acts that are part of the practice”. Hannula further quotes Feyerabend in claiming that it is paramount for the process to be open-ended and free to go where it needs to go, without initial limitations. (Hannula et. al., 2014, p. 3-5)
Scientific works using this method are also dissimilar from work in certain other fields, in that the approach to the method is emergent to each project. While this is unfamiliar to the expectations of a research methodology, it can be seen as efficacy that the method can be personally tailored. (Barrett, 2007, p. 2)
Indeed, the practice of art in a wide range of art disciplines, is part of the evidence in artistic research, and the personal approach of the artist cannot be ignored. Nelson (2013) writes, quoting Brad Haseman: “It (practice-led research) asserts the primacy of practice and insists that because creative practice is both on-going and persistent, practitioners do not just ‘think’ their way through or out of a problem, but rather they ‘practice’ to a resolution” (Nelson, 2013).
I chose the method of artistic research as it seemed to meet many concerns of mine. It has been used to compose music before, to explore sound, and to collaborate across musical traditions. It can be "cumulative, incremental and the process driven with the discovery along the way”, (Bolt, 2015, p.1307), and as I had few cognised notions about my process before the project, this seemed like a good approach.
As I have used the artistic research methodology, I have had to pay particular care establishing an outside view. As both Borgdorff, Vassenden, and Haaland commented earlier in this chapter, a fallacy of the method is that the risk of losing objectivity. I have had to pay particular care, especially as in this project, the product is intended to be mine and represent "me".
The many artistic roles I play in this project have given extra need for attention in this matter. Büchert experienced in his research project The Music Producer as Artistic Co-creator that he had more personal involvement in the outcome of a project as his roles changed from just one, to having more artistic roles, inculding being the singer and artist. (Büchert, 2024).
Part of my second research question was that I wanted to establish a "signature sound". To clarify this term further, Haaland writes that sound is “integrated into the discipline of popular musicology” and that we “use sound to describe a unique artistic expression.” (Haaland, 2020). Tor Dybo describes how every individual performer can have their "own characteristic sound". (Dybo 2013, p.18). Having tried to find an expression which I deemed genuine and true to my own aesthetic preferences and background, I have employed the method. My thesis explores the signature sound in different settings: both in studio recordings and in live concerts.
My third research question has addressed collaboration across musical traditions. The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer discusses the relationship between text and context — what he terms the "hermeneutic circle"—in Truth and Method (Gadamer, 2010). Haaland expands on the hermeneutic circle in his master’s thesis, connecting horizons of experience and understanding to layers of cultural understanding (Haaland, 2010, pp. 38-39). When forming collaborations between different traditions, the assumptions musicians hold about music, myself included, may need to be reviewed and possibly challenged.
As classical and popular music environments are different settings, how deep into the horizon of my collaborator do I see?
In his book Musicking - the means of performing and listening, Christopher Small creates a new term which we calls musicking. Music, he claims, has gone from being something we do, to becoming an object. According to his theories, the meaning behind the music is to be found in the relationships between the humans that are part of the act, including musicians, listernes, venue owners etc. (Kulset, 2021, Small, 1998) In my third research question, regarding collaborations between musicians from different traditions I have tried to explore this term.
In 2007, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research commissioned an evaluation by “Jørgensenutvalget” on Artistic Research. In the evaluation parameters for successful application of the artistic research method were established:
“Kunstnerisk utviklingsarbeid dekker kunstneriske prosesser som fører fram til et offentlig tilgjengelig kunstnerisk produkt. I denne virksomheten kan det også inngå en eksplisitt refleksjon rundt utviklingen og presentasjonen av kunstproduktet.”
(Jørgensen et al., 2007, s.14)
All the studio versions of the songs dealt with in this thesis will be collected on one or many albums and EP:s, and published on various streaming sites. None of them are to be considered as a finished product today, so the results from this research are demos and excerpts of my master concert, presented throughout the text and collected in chapter 6.
During the course of my master’s degree, I have also experimented with different ensembles in order to find an authentic expression for my music on a live stage. This search culminated with my master’s concert in the spring of 2024, and excerpts of this concert are published as part of the evidence.
However, neither the demos nor the concert are to be viewed as a final destination or endpoint, as my search and wish to optimise my setup, sound and stage presence continues beyond the scope of this research.
I have attempted to create a systematic overview of my process regarding composition, sound and collaboration. Part of my data is audio files, both from music recorded in different studio sessions, and locations, as well as from practice sessions and other processes, as documents of given points in time. I include field notes and logs, video material, voice memos, screenshots and photographs.
The publication of the “explicit reflection and presentation of the artistic product” that Jørgensensutvalget refers to, I open do on Research Catalogue (RC). The thesis is to be seen as complete only with these audio, video and text united. “In the context of artistic research, the RC is positioned precisely in the gap between the documentation of the work using texts, images and sound and the publication of the work as research.”(Borgdorff, 2011; Borgdorff et al, 2020)