This paper discusses philosophical framework of practice-based artistic research within the field of art and design in contrast with research in the natural and social science. It is stated that paradigm of artistic inquiry is ilustrated with the role of practicioner as researcher wherein subjectivity, involvement and reflexivity are acknowledged, while (k)nowledge is negotiated – inter-subjective, context bound, and is a result of personal construction. Visual objects have been exhausting large amount of our physical and emotional energy in seeing it which certainly gives them a central role in contemporary ages. It is suggested that research could become part of the needs for experience, to inspire, or to collectively develop a profession. Recently, research as knowledge production has been increasing and gaining its interest within the creative art field. However, there is a foundation which underpins a research, at least some implicit philosophical assumptions of it, which serve as the basis of understanding of reality (ontology), and how to know and justify it (epistemology); and by explicating it, it is believed that scrupulous consideration of it may contribute practical benefits in conducting art and design research. In that regard, this paper presents ontological outlook of Heidegger and also epistemology of art of Merleau-Ponty – which rises within phenomenological tradition – as a philosophical framework which can serve as paradigmatic underpinning of artistic research, in contrast with objectivist approach already identical with research in general.

We live in an age where our existence has been remarkably shaped by technology. However, as contemporary thinkers have elucidated, technology is not a mere sum of our tools. At a more profound level, technology forms an instrumental context that frames our relation to the world and to ourselves. Everything thereupon tends to appear merely as a means to an end. Countering the instrumentalistic tendencies of global technologization, this paper would like to ponder on the meaning of technology beyond mere tools. The core influence of this study is the thought of Martin Heidegger (18891976) which reveals that both technology and art stem from ancient techne, our basic way to reveal reality through embodied praxis. However, 2500 years of Western intellectual history has rendered the instrumental meaning of techne – that is, the way we understand technology today as practical utilization of science – becomes far more dominant than the artistic or poetic one. It is the aim of this literary study to elucidate Heidegger’s dense phenomenological inquiry which reveals the dual meaning of techne: techne as technology and techne as art. Recovery of the forgotten poetic meaning of techne is crucial to counter instrumentalism that pervades art in our techno-scientific age.

Some concepts from theoretical schools such as semiology, structuralism and post-structuralism are referenced in today’s discussions of design. Its language-ladeness which makes it appeals initially as pertinent to visual communication. Yet under the alleged reason of cross-disciplinary, design study often just wants to pick up one or two concepts without sufficient willingness to grasp their primer. It is very much contradictory since sheer picking up is an anti-intellectual attitude, whereas all forms of study are intellectual in character. Great scholar Alfred North Whitehead once complained those who quoted him in bits and pieces, as did not understand what is meant by his theory. It is true that design has a cross-disciplinary character. But since design is neither philosophy nor social science, it demands a study of their primer with respect (not oversimplifying), within the spirit of liberal arts. Hence this article does not intend to give 'structuralist' account of design; instead it is a brief study into primer of semiology, structuralism and post-structuralism. Its significance for design would be reflected afterwards.

Integration of many fields of human endeavor including art and design into academic system is not at all surprising in our modern world that continues to modernize itself in the quest for ever increasing welfare of humanity. The backbone of modern welfare is unmistakably techno-scientific academic research, explaining current expansion of its ‘standardized’ paradigm, regulation and infrastructure without exception into the field of art and design. This is where the problem precisely arises, since their own nature, art and design as ‘creative’ fields, are incompatible with scientific paradigm which emphasizes a uniform reproducibility of research findings. ‘The heart of the arts’, in contrast, is its singularities. The industry actually has recognized the difference by assigning ‘patents’ to technological invention and ‘copyright’ to singular artworks. The question is then how to incorporate such creatively plural fields into uniform academic research system. Fortunately within the past 20 years, there were developments within international art and design academia that came up with a keystone principle called practice-based research. It relies upon philosophical underpinnings of phenomenology and hermeneutics which has been critically acclaimed in showing inadequacies of positivistic (natural science-based) paradigm in understanding cultural phenomena exemplified by art and design. It is the intention of this article to briefly explain this new principle and its philosophical underpinnings in order to let us appreciate its positive contribution for our understanding of art and design. This understanding in turn would allow us to cultivate those creative fields within academic context in a more appropriate way.

No abstract