The Superposition

Commissioning Research.
Or How it Should be Done
Dominic Hopkinson
When most people think of the process
of commissioning a public artwork,
they probably assume that the artist is
selected on the basis of the strength and
suitability of their work, and is given free
reign to interpret a fairly open brief. The
reality, as most artists quickly discover, is
rather different. Invariably, a committee has
been set up to “manage” the process,
which is made up of project administrators,
funders, architects and developers.
Many, if not all, of these people have no
background in the arts and have little or
no interest in the project in its own right.
They are just going through the motions
because the development brief included
a clause requiring the provision of a piece
of public art.
What becomes apparent is that this
group of people have already set a
budget, found a preferred location,
chosen a “theme” and have an expectation
of delivery that is a million miles
away from what is possible given the
size of the budget. The artist, the sole
member of the process who has
specialist knowledge and experience
in the process, is left with nothing more
to do than to fulfil what is effectively a
“fabrication brief”. Build what we want,
where we want it, how we want it and to
our budget and limited taste!
Usually this means that the work is
designed by committee and conforms
to the lowest common denominator.
This approach is especially troublesome
when commissioning a work that
incorporates an element of scientific
research. Throughout the Superposition
process we are aware that art-science
collaboration is not a superficial “add-on”
to the creative process, but a process
that informs every aspect of the design
and build stages of an artwork. Because
of this, commissioning a piece of art
has to take into account what Donald
Rumsfeld infamously called “known
unknowns”, i.e. those elements of a
project that are still very much in the
research phase. If commissioners really
want to buy into an Art/Science process
they have to understand that what they
are really commissioning is a research
process first, and an artwork “build”
second.
The methodologies employed by artists,
scientists and makers are incredibly
similar; asking questions, formulating
how best to answer them, building and
testing prototypes and theories, refining
the approach and engineering solutions,
either theoretically or practically. The use
of experimentation through iteration is
key to this process, with outcomes only
becoming clear as the experimentation
progresses. This is also not usually a
discrete process; creation and solutions
coming at multiple stages along the
route, often leading to outcomes not
originally expected. Keeping an open
mind to possibilities is crucial; having
a willingness to be led by the results
rather than slavishly following the plan
to the letter.
33 93