I have a chapter of Moogee’s drawing live at STEAM conference in this publication.

links below

‘Thinking through Drawing’ publications:


2012 Drawing in STEAM

In this publication which counts as a ‘research publication’ for REF I have a entire chapter whilst disguised as a cartoon dog ‘scribing’ and reacting to written papers/presentations. As I not actually delivering a written text the visuals are considered viable documents of the event i.e. other people’s research NOT my own.


2013 Interweavings – Day 1 Proceedings, viagra Drawing Research Network – download PDF

Although I presented Rakes at the Day 1 it not included in the proceedings as it does not contain a textual element reflecting and ‘communicating’ the research therein although it does contain a lot of visual text. This in itself says all I need to say about art research not being about art it about talking about art.

If I submitted a written paper about presenting the visual paper it would count..with illustrations of course. This I find ironic but completely logical in the strange parameters of ‘art research’.

Pure visual submissions do not count.

However visual and text do but the text gets printed: Here a link to the 2012 Drawing Research Network pdf where the ‘text’ NOT the visuals were published.

The Moogee V Frayling text was subsequently published as an Art Humanities in Higher Education paper here:

This was the whole basis of my M.A. I was testing by action research the practical limits of the theory of an artwork being sufficient in and of itself…containing the new knowledge itself even if a sequential series. The answer is for the purposes of current academic ‘rigour’ to all intents and purposes it is not. This is a core concern throughout the Elkins book. I illustrated this in public. To become valid research I or another have to filter it into documented textual that simple.

The future of fine art research is therefore an ever increasing mountain of  textual exposition of why artworks, shop from the profound to the simplistic and occasionally absurd,is more important that the artwork itself and always will be. It has to fit into the scientific methodology of academia. I make a distinction between ‘fine art’ and ‘design‘ research deliberately.

Design Research has a sound iterative development cycle history and methodology it is fine art that flounders.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.