{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018076644974692697, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.043668122270742, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mirror, mirror: towards ‘something like’ a value system for art research by way of critique and dialogic art

ABSTRACT This speculative paper stems from an anxiety that will be familiar to many working in art research: The values of Research are thwarting the field's development because the former are ill suited to support the latter on the latter's own terms. Research with an uppercase ‘R’ is used here to designate the vague but powerful sense of what this entails as it permeates the cultures of art research. The following reflections spring from my sense that engaging Research as a theory to be interpreted through the practice of art research could more effectively correlate the theory and practice of this field. To explore this I begin by canvassing relevant literature for reference to three cherished values of Research: knowledge, originality and collaboration. Observing ways they trouble art research, I go on to speculate that Stephen Scrivener's account of art's practical value as negation may help with identifying alternative values that are more indigenous to art. I consider this possibility with reference to my practice-based Ph.D. on dialogic art before concluding this speculative paper with the conviction that both auto-critique and institutional critique hold tremendous potential for art research as this field seeks to self-realise on its own terms.