Research models vary widely in the fine arts

Karen Herland

Professors in the Fine Arts Faculty talk about their work as “research/creation.” The designation is more than semantic and has a real impact on their work.

A discussion among faculty grant holders last semester led by Ana Cappelluto, Associate Dean Research and Graduate Studies, revealed that several different research models are applied within the faculty.

She explained that some fine arts professors use standard models of humanities and scientific research. Professors in the Art Education and Art History Departments employ the former, and computer design and new media researchers use the latter.

Beyond those models, there are two different kinds of production research. For example, individual studio work describes a solitary artist within painting, drawing, sculpture or photography. Collective studio work in areas like theatre or dance production involves a vastly different approach requiring the contribution and abilities of a number of different people. Collaboration and critique are also necessary in Cinema or Design and Computation Arts.

The designations of solitary or collective work, and traditional and non-traditional academic methodologies are neither independent of each other, nor department-specific.

“The Theatre Department incorporates both play-writing and production, and Cinema also includes both film studies and production,” Cappelluto said.

Some professors’ work is published in scholarly publications that go through a blind peer review process. Others have their work produced as catalogues to accompany exhibits they curate. Still others may find themselves the subject of exhibition catalogues or reviews of their own exhibits or productions.

Each faculty receives internal funding based on the amount of research funding granted to its professors through the major federal and provincial academic funding bodies. That money is allocated to researchers as start-up, completion or travel funding for projects and directly impacts a researcher’s ability to prepare for future funding applications and share work at conferences.

The creativity of Fine Arts researchers is financed differently than in other faculties. “The funding we get tends to be to the individual artist, rather than the institution,” Cappelluto said.

Funding can come from the Canada Council for the Arts, Heritage Canada, provincial bodies and foundations, in addition to academic granting programs. It ranges from small DuMaurier grants right through to Cinema professor Guylaine Dionne’s recent $3.5-million grant through the Société de développement des entreprises culturelles (SODEC). to direct Serveuses demandées.

The work involved in writing a screenplay and then mounting the production of a feature-length film is considerable — as was the application process that garnered the multi-million-dollar funding. This type of funding has not been acknowledged internally in the same way as funds granted through SSHRC or the FQRSC. Artists whose work is commissioned (and paid for) through museums, private collections or public foundations are also outside of the institutional funding paradigm.

Cappelluto recognizes that this diverse range of expression and creation is one of the greatest strengths of the faculty. It also involves certain challenges.

“Each requires a different type of support and infrastructure. We need everything from large theatrical spaces to small seminar rooms for a few PhD students.”