Aesthetic tensions : evaluating outcomes for practice-led research and industry

This paper explores principles of contemporary aesthetics to suggest a basis for determining qualitative outcomes of artistic works in two contexts: the arts industry and the academy setting of practice-led research. Commonly articulated measures of quality—creativity and innovation—are questioned as mere rhetoric if not framed in specific ways in the two discrete settings. The paper also interrogates generally held assumptions that a longer time to develop work and greater periods of self-reflexivity will produce higher calibre artistic outcomes. The unease produced by apparent differences in qualitative outcomes between art works created in an industry setting and those created through practice-led research is analysed through three interconnected framing devices: intention, contextual parameters and criteria for evaluation, in conjunction with the relationships between the art work, the artist and the audience/viewer/listener. Common and differentiated criteria in the two contexts are explored, leading to the conclusion that innovation is more likely to be revealed in the end product in an industry context whereas in practice-led research it may be in the methodological processes of creating the work. While identifying and acknowledging that the two contexts encourage and produce distinctive qualitative artistic outcomes, both of value to the arts and the academy, the paper recommends ways in which closer formal liaison between industry artists and practice-led artists and supervisors might occur in order to ensure ongoing mutual influence and relevance.