Keywords:postresearch concepts, cognitive capitalism, institutional critique, polydisciplinamory, futurities of Artistic Research
The article addresses the situation of research in art institutions and its contradictions. Can postresearch become a critical impulse for artistic research? The proposition of “postresearch” was first introduced in the European context of artistic research when the 9th Bucharest Biennale, “Farewell to Research”, curated by Henk Slager in 2020 was announced. The philosopher Peter Osborne consequently analyzed the concept of postresearch and its self-contradictory claim of wanting to leave the research paradigm.1 He emphasized that artistic research must fulfil a non-administrative function, as does the “concept of art” by neglecting or revising its form. In comparison, higher education standards and academic legitimation processes of artistic research follow stricter standardization rules (e.g., written supplements). If artistic research neither competes with the “concept of art” (whatever that is?) nor acts as a legitimate science or discipline and furthermore does not escape administration, should these practices reclaim their status as art?
Within the unresolved question of how to position artistic research between art and science – or more specifically in the humanities – lies also its attraction, its character or junction for crossing disciplines and critical studies. Artistic research has what the theorist Natalie Loveless called a polydisciplinamorious character which can lead future debates from methodo- logical introspection to collaborate in postresearch practices.