“Rather than mimicking scholarship or simply illustrating academic concepts, artists can promote non-discursive insights and visual thinking—modes of inquiry uniquely suited to revealing what traditional research often cannot. One particularly productive strategy, which aligns closely with investigative journalism, lies in the practice of situated knowledge: grounding artistic work in lived, material experiences that abstract scholarship is not equipped to address.” Isn’t this what art has always done? Artists have always “researched” if we want to call it that, and then formed visual expressions of that research. Now artists and the museums that support seem to be compelled to explain, usually in excessive texts, what the viewer should be left to experience and understand on their own terms.
You're absolutely right that artists have always drawn from the world around them—through observation, intuition, or reflection—and transformed that into visual expression. However, the idea of research in contemporary art, especially in the context I’m discussing, refers to a more deliberate, structured process of inquiry. This is especially true in forms like site-specific or socially engaged art, where artists work directly with political, historical, or social realities that can't simply be absorbed through intuition or visual culture alone.
It’s also worth noting that not all references to “research” in art are equal. Without some grounding in history, technique, or context, artistic work can quickly become superficial—relying on personal feeling or aesthetic gesture alone. In that sense, the call for deeper research is also a call for artistic rigor, not a rejection of instinct or expression but a supplement to it.
As for the matter of interpretive texts, I’d agree that they can sometimes feel overwrought, but in my experience, this tendency often comes more from artists themselves than from curators or institutions. When artists feel pressure to justify their work within academic or discursive frameworks, the results can indeed become heavy-handed. But I would argue that this is a symptom of the field grappling with new methodologies and trying to find language for complex practices—not a fundamental flaw in the idea of research-driven art.
Ultimately, my point is not that all art must be research-based, but that certain forms—particularly those that engage directly with social or political environments—demand a level of investigative commitment that goes beyond the purely intuitive or aesthetic. In those cases, research isn’t optional; it’s foundational.
“Rather than mimicking scholarship or simply illustrating academic concepts, artists can promote non-discursive insights and visual thinking—modes of inquiry uniquely suited to revealing what traditional research often cannot. One particularly productive strategy, which aligns closely with investigative journalism, lies in the practice of situated knowledge: grounding artistic work in lived, material experiences that abstract scholarship is not equipped to address.” Isn’t this what art has always done? Artists have always “researched” if we want to call it that, and then formed visual expressions of that research. Now artists and the museums that support seem to be compelled to explain, usually in excessive texts, what the viewer should be left to experience and understand on their own terms.
You're absolutely right that artists have always drawn from the world around them—through observation, intuition, or reflection—and transformed that into visual expression. However, the idea of research in contemporary art, especially in the context I’m discussing, refers to a more deliberate, structured process of inquiry. This is especially true in forms like site-specific or socially engaged art, where artists work directly with political, historical, or social realities that can't simply be absorbed through intuition or visual culture alone.
It’s also worth noting that not all references to “research” in art are equal. Without some grounding in history, technique, or context, artistic work can quickly become superficial—relying on personal feeling or aesthetic gesture alone. In that sense, the call for deeper research is also a call for artistic rigor, not a rejection of instinct or expression but a supplement to it.
As for the matter of interpretive texts, I’d agree that they can sometimes feel overwrought, but in my experience, this tendency often comes more from artists themselves than from curators or institutions. When artists feel pressure to justify their work within academic or discursive frameworks, the results can indeed become heavy-handed. But I would argue that this is a symptom of the field grappling with new methodologies and trying to find language for complex practices—not a fundamental flaw in the idea of research-driven art.
Ultimately, my point is not that all art must be research-based, but that certain forms—particularly those that engage directly with social or political environments—demand a level of investigative commitment that goes beyond the purely intuitive or aesthetic. In those cases, research isn’t optional; it’s foundational.