Dr. Natalie S. Loveless is a conceptual artist, curator, and Assistant Professor of contemporary art history and theory in the Department of Art and Design at the University of Alberta, where she also directs the Research-Creation and Social Justice CoLABoratory. Loveless specializes in feminist and performance art history, art as social practice and the pedagogical turn, and artistic research methodologies (research-creation). She has modelled her research-creation practice in her work on maternal ecology and through auto-ethnographic performance and scholarship. She is also writing the first book that thinks carefully about the pedagogical promise and challenges posed by SSHRC’s category of research-creation and what it means to treat art as research in ways that are responsible simultaneously to the meaning and power of art and to the needs and requirements of a degree-granting university system. Current projects include “Maternal Ecologies: An Autoethnographic and Artistic Exploration of Contemporary Motherhood” (funded by an Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), a book on Art and/as Research for Duke University Press (Haraway’s Dog, Or How to Make Art at the End of the World), and a chapter on feminist art and the maternal for the forthcoming Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Feminist Art Practice and Theory, co-edited by Hilary Robinson and Maria Elena Buszek (Maternal Mattering: the Performance and Politics of the Maternal in Contemporary Art).
Measuring Incompatibilities: Impact Metrics Across Disciplinary Divides
By the late 1980s and early 1990s in the UK, Doctoral-level degree granting programs started to suggest that not only was artistic practice worthy of an undergraduate degree (the production of introductory knowledge relevant to a field), or even a Master’s degree (the mastery of a field of knowledge), but artistic practice could lead to a doctoral degree (the production of new knowledge in a field). Within the academy, this then begged the question: if artistic practice now constituted the production of new knowledge in a field—knowledge presumed to be verifiable through adjudication structures relevant to that field—what metrics might be used for measuring such arts-based, and sometimes quite radically interdisciplinary, projects? This paper, in its final form, will examine problems that emerge when artistic practice is assessed with metrics translated from sister fields (for example: a solo exhibition = a single authored book; a group exhibition = a chapter in an edited volume) with particular attention to interdisciplinary collaborations that cross more distant divides than the those of the arts and humanities, such art and medicine, using The Vaccines Project—a project the author is currently involved in—as case study. Below is an initial draft. Following the exhibition being currently mounted in Norway, this draft will be revised to account for the modes of assessment deployed during the exhibition itself and discussed during the final workshop (March 13-15, 2017).
Talk Date: April 29, 10-12pm Panel V (closed): Resilience and Generative Politics