Eisner writes, “Visual arts are used to communicate the way something feels, that is, its emotional character.” As I was reading this week, I couldn’t help but think about visual arts based research is a form of humanization that flows back and forth through the researcher and the work, in the case of Eisner who allowed his deep love of art to take over the strict training at the University of Chicago. It makes me think of the large growth of Ivy on a building in Berkeley many years ago.  The Ivy made a home in every wall of a building, until the paint and original structure became obscured by years of natural growth. These readings ask us to explore what may be possible, if we allow ourselves to grow beyond the structured design of our own methodological programming. Further, all of the readings address the emotionality which allows the researcher but also those who read the research to be partners, through what Dewey offers as slowing “down perception and invit(ing) exploration” among all people. What is the purpose of static knowledge, if we are in a world that is expansive and ever changing? Like the Ivy plant, what we know can be reduced with sheers or statistical analysis but what of the possibilities when we allow ourselves and the research to flow out and over the tools made for reduction?  What is possible when we research with the purpose of creation? Where is it necessary to reduce and in what ways is this harmful to what we come to know as truth or “fact” thinking of Barone, who writes, that facts are not adequate for telling the whole story?

I really loved thinking of arts based research and methodology as a heuristic and would love to explore how different researchers have done this work. I agree with Eisner and Barone who write that “the borders between art and science are malleable and porous” and further, see how Western society has yet to tap into the potential of interdisciplinary pluralist research. These readings made me think of Sylvia Wynter’s piece, The Sociogenic Principle, which examines how the division between science and art leave major gaps in knowledge. She writes advocating for a deepening of understanding of poetic knowledge as a means to understand all that is not known within “hard sciences” like physics and chemistry, etc. Why is the western conception of science devoid of humanity? I loved how the authors included their personal narratives or what Carol Gilligan might call the roots of their work, and also offer simple and profound questions for researchers.  Some that are sitting with me currently include, “what does the reader take away?” What is the impact of the tools we use on our research but also on ourselves? How does feeling and expression shape our understanding of a person, place or situation? How might we as researchers and educators touch the souls of students as well as measure their sleeve or hat size? How can our research address help readers to learn and notice aspects of the world and further debate or dialogue with another?

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.