The Society for Artistic Research (SAR) was established in March 2010 as an independent, non-profit organisation for the purpose of publishing the Journal for Artistic Research (JAR). It is a dynamic, international group that is encouraging discussion and activity dedicated to artistic research. SAR is comprised of both individual and institutional members from around the globe, who support SAR through the payment of a membership fee, sponsorship, and the gifting of their time and expertise.
Click here for more information, to become a member and support JAR!
The JAR review process
All expositions in JAR are peer reviewed (except those in our inaugural issue 0). The steps of this process after the reception of a submission are:
1. Assessment by the Editorial Board
The Editorial Board assesses if the submission meets the basic requirements to be passed to review (see submissions) and may suggest some changes before doing so.
2. Invitation of Reviewers
The Editorial Board invites at least three reviewers for the submission, approaching experts from disciplinary fields of the submission, including artistic, scientific and scholarly disciplines. The author(s) may propose one of the three reviewers. JAR expects the reviewers to engage critically and supportively with the field of artistic research.
JAR employs a 'single blind' review process. The reviewers are anonymous until publication; while the names of the authors are announced. In the art field, a 'double blind' review process can be seen as particularly inappropriate, as the research often carries the ‘signature’ of those who conducted it.
Peer-reviewers are asked to use the JAR Peer Review Form to report on their assessment. The form can be downloaded here.
3. Decision on the basis of reviews
Having received the reviews, the Editorial Board decides whether the submission is:
If a submission is accepted, the reviewers are asked to compile a final set of comments based on the re-worked submission. These comments are then published alongside the submission as ‘JAR Reviewer Comments’ and linked to from the JAR table of contents.
We continue to debate what peer review entails in the context of JAR. We believe that research can be assessed, while at the same time we recognize that artistic research work is, by its nature, an open undertaking, resisting overly rigid regulations. JAR itself is work-in-progress. The emerging community of artistic researchers will learn and define through practice what it means to expose artistic research.
If the submission is accepted, it will be published in one of the next issues of JAR.
Points of attention for reviewing JAR submissions
Note: This is work in progress. Reviewing criteria are suggestions that allow the probing of an exposition in particular ways without being prescriptive.
1. Which aspects of the submission are of interest / relevance and why?
JAR seeks submissions that address important issues or problems in an artistic manner that engages others in the field. When answering this question, please take into account the submission’s subject matter, its methods, outcomes or any other aspect that you deem important.
2. Does the submission live up to its potential?
Please reflect on the potential of the submission and the way it is realised. How might the submission be improved to better match its potential?
3. How does the submission expose practice as research?
JAR is open to submissions from various methodological backgrounds, as long as they expose practice as research. By this we mean that the submission exposes, translates, stages, performs etc. the practice it presents so as to engage with its own meaning, to challenge existing epistemic horizons or to offer new insights.
Please take into account:
Ultimately, a submission may successfully expose practice as research despite disappointing conventional academic criteria for the assessment of research. If applicable, please state where the breaching of such criteria is detrimental to the submission.
4. How well do design and navigation support the submission?
Design and navigation should support the proposition. Its reception should make sense and not frustrate (in the case that ‘frustration’ is not deemed an important element of the submission).
JAR does not operate with a minimum or maximum word count because, as a rich-media publication, we could technically accept an exposition without words. But, as a guide, we advise that a reader/viewer should be able to explore the main part of the exposition and understand the research in approximately one hour.
Reviewing for JAR
JAR has a growing database of reviewers who generously agree to contribute their time and points of view aiding us in our aim to publish and debate artistic research. The journal welcomes the interest of possible reviewers from all disciplines, whether operating inside or outside the academic context. Contact us (email@example.com) if you feel you can help us in this important role.
Since the 1960s, walking artists have documented the multifarious relationship between humans and their built environments. By turning walking into art, key figures such as Bruce Nauman, Richard Long, Marina Abramović, and Hamish Fulton paved the way for future practitioners, such as Janet Cardiff, Tim Brennan, Tim Knowles, and Rachel Clewlow, among others, who continue to use walking as an opportunity creatively to investigate notions of place, identity, time, consciousness, and heritage. Whether walking fosters new artistic inquiry or remains its product, what a vast majority of walking artists have in common is that they pursue a form of praxis on the surfaces of their habitats.
This practice-led research project contributes to creative walking praxis by pursuing notions of cultural identity through an engagement with sub-suburban infrastructure. By developing sound-based, visual, and textual interactions with subterranean space – specifically stormwater drains – this project seeks to investigate alternative ontologies of everyday life.
This exposition investigates practice-as-research dynamics through a project titled ‘Shuttle’, from which emerged a practice of ‘shuttling’ as a layered modality for processing methodological artistic research. An international crew of artists, designers, and performance makers enquire into peer-to-peer creative practice development: practices unfolding through the dramaturgy of a twenty-day, four-thousand-mile mobile performance-research journey in the deserts of the North American south-west. We trace the dynamics of a practice-as-research milieu through a suite of artistic operations, performatively elaborated through this rich-media exposition. Through ‘shuttling’, we generate parafunctional performative spaces and temporalities. Our spatio-temporal and sensory mode of research – conditioned, co-created, and situated as a mobile laboratory – posits reflexivity as an embodied practice, as a medium of ‘shuttling’ with the dynamic emergence of creative research practices.
This exposition documents several years of process-driven practice-as-research. The work explores themes of womanhood, embodiment, and autobiography.
Throughout the exposition I argue that the embodiment of process is key to understanding practice-as-research. I propose that practice-as-research projects should not be driven with a ‘final output’ in mind. Instead, the practice of practice-as-research should be reconsidered throughout its development; it should use its potential for liminality. It is the demonstration of a ‘living process’; living in process.
This exposition explores ways in which we live in process through a presentation of text, visual essays, and short film and video pieces. The work develops from creative artefacts and critical text into a piece of responsive writing, 'A Play of Characters'. This playtext reconsiders some of the influences in the work and explores the imagery of the whole project in a performative context.
The notion of embodiment and a 'living body of work' is developed further through the use of metaphor, in particular the metaphor of the mollusc. I use this to consider how practice evolves alongside process, 'housing' both the work and the process in both material form (the shell) and trace (the snail trail).
Different combinations of this work have been presented as performance installations, both at the University of Portsmouth, as part of my PhD examination in 2010, and at the University of Lincoln, as part of the Gnarlfest in 2014. However, by the very nature of 'living in process' this is a work that continues to evolve and 'live' in different forms. The purpose of this exposition is to explore the work in an accessible online form – one that offers alternative platforms and sequences, creating different possibilities and readings of the practice.
This exposition discusses artistic appropriations of issues related to the contemporary global food agenda and the possible impact of these interventions on the public’s food-related mindset. It begins with an overview of some of the most pressing concerns about the current state of global food production and continues by discussing how these concerns are affected by social networking technologies and online collaborations. Social initiatives and food activists, as well as artists and designers, have become interested in communal bottom-up efforts to refine the global flow of food commodities. The second chapter of this exposition discusses recent examples of contemporary food art/design works. Beside a theoretical overview, the author presents her own food art/design project ‘HotKarot & OpenSauce’ and offers an insight into the field from the perspective of a researcher-as-practitioner. The exposition aims to raise important questions about the potential of participatory art/design initiatives and critically address current global food issues, hence supporting consumers’ general awareness of what ends up on their plates, how it gets there, and under what circumstances.
The affective qualities of surfaces (and the skin) in drawing operations, wedging clay, and video are developed in this research exposition by activating them with both the concept and the practice of exhaustion in emergent series. The practical and conceptual framework emerges along side Deleuze's 'The Fold', Deleuze and Guattari's concepts of the 'smooth' and the 'striated', and Stefano Harney and Fred Moten's 'The Undercommons'. The images, videos, poetics, and concepts of the exhibition develop folding textures and generate charged affective worlds with the force to modulate habits and attunements. As these emergent worldings intensify an emergent corporeal, they also activate a research process that continually folds over and across itself, opening up to new affects, concepts, and subjectivities. Folds exhaust themselves in the multiple, unspeakable midst, until the gentle vibration sparks a current and starts to resonate the fine hairs on the surface of the skin so that they again become sticky.
The Research Catalogue (RC) is a searchable, documentary database of artistic research work and its exposition. The RC is an inclusive, open-ended, bottom-up research tool that supports the journal's academic contributions.