From the first presentation on there was a feeling of understanding and awareness towards the difficulties that research comes with once it leaves the boarders of the measurable.
The discussion sessions/panels at the very begining and the end of the event were especially effective in engaging me into the understanding of the importance of developing a community on DDDr projects. Bringing together various perspectives from different institutions, I got the opportunity to be aware of arguable and ambigious positions of artistic research in PhD research, especially in relation to scientific workability. The following questions, do we need an agenda for DDDr projects, how to develop one that welcomes many voices and sustains and how to carry out these, are some of the questions from the event that still ocuppy my mind.
The most evident impact was certainly in the context of the “Artefacts,” as the materials presented highlighted, in a more evident way, both the potential and any shortcomings of the proposed projects.
Generally through the artefacts, be they video or drawings
I really liked openness of some panel speakers and presenters. Softened Boundaries between disciplines, and criteria that is high. New definitions of things we take for granted, in relation to research. I loved discussions on various recommendations, starting with questions we ask ourselves in different phases of DDR research, or research in general. Constructive critique/s. In conclusion, this conference gave me strength to approach to my research in experimental way, to trust my intuition, and to open eyes to all the stimulus around. Also it made me rethink relations between things I investigate, and their different scales that matter.
In the evening after my presentation it was the first time that I became aware about the fact that I am actually getting close to the end of my dissertation, that I have actually managed to get “there”. It was a very special moment!
Firstly, my considerations were triggered during the introductions of the different universities and the phd candidates that gave a short presentation there. Besides this, it was not specifically from one or more specific presentations, but mostly from the discussions, which proved very interesting for me. Although it didn’t always offer one clear ‘answer’, the different directions that were offered during the discussion were good to question my own work in different ways. Certainly when I had my own presentation, the discussion and questions gave some intruiging new angles to approach it.
I attended a few presentations but I think that I am more and more aware that the impact of DDDr is more easily perceived when the research is more advanced. In the early stages of the investigation, everything seems more vague and diffuse, but the impact is well perceived in mature investigations. On the other hand, this is something that happens in all research processes, I think.
When i was presenting my textile artefacts, we discussed how they relate to my theoretical approaches, and I explained how making these artefacts in different environments allowed me to theorise more about more-than-human approaches and traditional knowledge.
Conversations lead to potential new collaborations across universities, and across disciplines. Energy!
The Keynote “Reformulation and Creativity” impacted my way of thinking of what I already know from a different perspective and how to bring novelty and appropriateness in my research.
Just as an example, I can mention the opposing approaches of two presenters’ use of historical data. I was panel member for both presentations: Pablo Gamboa’s research centres around the typological classification of campuses in South America and Milijana Niković’s research uses films as an investigative/speculative instrument to inquire the disruptions in the history of Belgrade’s urbanscape. Although, at first glance one seems to be rooted in typology and the other in media studies, both negated historiography as an active knowledge formation in their research. Both researchers, focusing on the instrumentality of their medium of research (campuses/typology and film/montage), use history (or historical material) as a database rather than a knowledge domain. This leads to the oversight of the significance of the epistemic dimension of research in general. Therefore, I have been contemplating on the nature of design-driven research in terms of the definitions of “design” and “design objectives” in conjunction with the underlying research agendas: how (much) does the design driven aspects of the research contribute to the meta-frame of the research?
Some selected presentations was very inspiring for me:
- Viktorija Bogdanova, because of all her beautiful drawings and the fact that she really just goes for what she believes is interesting. And her drawings from the exhibition helped me to remember to use my creative skills in my work as well, in my case that will involve craftsmanship with the materials.
- ‘How to use a monument’ by Or Haklai, Enrico Chinellato; because of their interesting process
- ‘Wild gardens’ by Silvia Maria Mundula, because of her topic which really interests me as well, and helped me to realize I should just focus on what’s Triggers me in my work.
- ‘The Potential of a Tectonic Approach for the Experiential Qualities of Architecture’ by Tim Simon-Meyer, he have an similar approach as I plan to, including materials, students, building workshops and tectonics. An inspiring presentation for me, indeed!
Discussions after the presentations, both with the presenters and with the audience was often interesting and helped me to get to know new people and with them discuss my work.
The formulation of research objectives differs between early, mid- and final stage of research. The candidates seem to benefit from exposure to different perspectives, so that the design-driven aspects of research appears to be better contextualised in later stages of the research. Whereas, in the early stage candidates, I observe two main tendencies. Either they lean on the design act or processes or show difficulties in narrowing down to clarify the main axis of the research.
Again the trigger for me seemed to be having to organize my research in the categories given by Prominski and von Seggern. In stepping out of the research itself and sorting the body of work into these categories and then presenting the research through this lens. I think it also helped the audience follow the research goal and results. One of my critics commented something like ‘of course I have read a lot about the problem you are investigating as your research topic but I have never seen anyone attempt to do something to address this problem’, then I knew that I was able to communicate the goals and results clearly to persons unfamiliar with my research. So one could say, as a Final Stage research I was able to enter the area of reflecting on the work in order to see clearly what it was contributing to our practice.
Comments by Jo van den Berghe on moments within PhDs when knowledge is produced beyond the terms or expectations of the project from the outset. The search that produces new insights. This was a crucial intervention. Christoph Heinemann’s analogy of the work of the designer/thinker with St Thomas touching the wound of Christ. Ana Telles’s contribution to the discussion of the copy in which she spoke of its importance in relation to traditions in music. All of these led me to think that the specific moments pertinent to design thought and action are in themselves necessarily illustrated as knowledge.
The impact was, in my view, triggered by the workshops. Their role in the events is improving. They are becoming better at establishing dialogues, sharing different understandings of DDDr and forming a common framework for the feedback following the presentations. The shared concluding discussion and inclusion of the observers’ specific reports also helped address detailed insights on DDDr. There were also excellent examples of feedback from different disciplinary backgrounds contributing to shared discussions. For instance, in Pietro Quattropani’s presentation ‘The Concept of Copy in Arts and its Application in Architectural Projects’ where comments on the role of copying from artistic, architectural and musical perspectives came together in a rich discussion.
The first “eureka” moment was during the preparation of my presentation. It was the first time that I was about to talk about my PhD project publicly, and I wanted to show my journey in a structured way, so that the panelists and the audience understand my own steps. The second time that I felt how everything was suddenly making sense, was during the introductory lecture of Kathrin Wildner, as well as with Fabrizia Berlingieri’s text “DISMANTLING, REASSEMBLING, COMPOSING ANEW”. This is also why I have included their reflections on subjectivity in my presentation. The third “”aha”” moment was directly after my presentation: I had a flashback of my research progress starting from my extended abstract application in January, to the acceptance and the writing of my paper.
The power of contemplation at the presentation of Lena Ehringhaus, the capacity of exploration of drawing, explicit at the work of Rui Barreira, the inputs of Ana Telles, from the field of music, are examples of the diverse approaches to Design Driven Doctoral Research
Dirk Bahmann’s presentation triggered my statement that the moment when the candidate is coming to the overarching insight in his/her PhD IS the PhD itself. Subsequently I could see how Dirk immediately understood what I was trying to say, and that this was a liberating moment for him in his PhD. Lena Ehringhaus’s presentation triggred a comparable moment, when I could see more deeply rooted themes that were implicitly there and that I could make explicit in my comments as a panel member.
The capacity of researchers to open up space emancipating it from the mere traditional conception of design as merely linked to construction. The researchers, presenters, and panelists discussed a wider agency of architecture. This agency was shown through the focus on design practices and not just discussing the content of the research. Even if some PhD-projects were missing a generative use of practices or were in a seminal stage of research, the discussions were often focused on design practices motivating the research to find an own practice. This focus was very clear in the keynotes presentations (Tattara, Krumwiede, Lehnerer) and in the related discussion.