The Institute for the Performing Arts and Film (IPF) is celebrating its first ten years. When we comprehensively evaluated the years 2011–2015, it became apparent just how many projects were created during this time. The overview after a decade was impressive: implementing projects, acquisitioning external funds, establishing a network, team building, conferences and publications – it wasn’t until the collection was put together that we became aware of all of this.

This motivated us to look back on all previous activities of the IPF, which we have condensed in the 216 pages of this book. The main focus is the description of research projects for and with performative practice and film over the last ten years, as well as individual contributions created for the publication. A selection of several unsuccessful ventures is also included.

Just like the concept of theatricality developed by theater scholar Rudolf Münz in which “non-theater”, meaning theatre which did not take place, is only the other side of the coin (of “theatre”), for us the “byproducts”, which were discarded or not found worthy of a grant, were nonetheless essential for our research. Often they were the prerequisite for the success of a follow-up project.

In the first few years we were left alone to find, or even to devise, our own topics, which was probably the best thing that could have happened for our development. However, we were under constant pressure when it came to formalities. A third of our total budget had to be acquired from external funds, international networks had to be established and publications had to be released – if possible at no extra cost – in order for the university to also take on a leading role in the research landscape. Whenever we wanted to achieve a greater impact, we would inevitably have to raise more money.

Quality was always a priority, it was not about gaining public attention; it is better to have sound knowledge in one field than to lose your way in many. Several of our topics were previously considered “unresearchable” and they did not stem from any established scientific tradition. They could hardly be placed in any existing series of publications, but we broke new ground with them and, being well received in the end, they confirmed what the researchers had initially intended in their secretly determined conviction.

On the one hand, we had a good deal of freedom as there was no research tradition dictating how our questions should be analyzed, discussed or published. On the other, we were limited because every idea and every question immediately needed to be part of a long-established discourse. Evaluation committees demand criteria, peer groups need comparability and our basic funding was not sufficient to cultivate our own research landscape. So we needed external funds, which required developing an “application language” with which we would be able to translate the content-related interests into projects worthy of a grant.

The love of language that theatre, film and dance researchers share was very useful to us. In retrospect, the dramatic structure of many of our applications is recognizable and the substantial content matter became visible only through using convincing language especially because we hardly ever made the medium the message. The arts were always our main concern and the format of publication and dissemination was adapted to the respective subject matter. But the research results on stage and on screen could rarely do without a text.

We do not say this without a bit of pride, but it is a fact that today there is no longer any doubt about the research assignment of arts universities. We achieved several milestones and conducted an astounding number of research projects, thus evoking a much wider range of hopes, expectations and prospects. The actual objective was for these projects to also be of service to our teaching and indirectly to society and this is something that will never fully be achieved. However, the dangling carrot in front of the donkey continues to motivate. We’re on it!

The beauty of research is that you can see what it provokes, initiates and leaves behind. Traces. This anthology is a first tracking collection, an interdisciplinary logbook, a ball of wool of sorts made up of about a hundred hastily rolled up threads, each of which was woven with great conviction, care and accuracy.

Research that is not primarily about the results or histories of the arts, but directly connected to the arts is far from being either established or internationally widespread. The unknown, or even extravagant, the manic, the unreal and the adventurous, all of which are inherent to any kind of research, are all beneficial to us and will lead the way for future artistic research. If not the artists, then who should access the madness of our time?

It would please us if you would lose yourself a little in the following pages and maybe even continue to weave one or another strand. For us, this was just the beginning.

The editors

 Seite 2 von 2Auf einer Seite lesen