CRITICAL REVIEW #4 AND NOTES FOR A PUBLICATION | Francesco Ragazzi | 25.04.2018 BECOMING AN ARTISTIC RESEARCHER: A RITE OF PASSAGE TOWARDS LIMINALITY Scattered notes for a future publication. INTRODUCTION After almost two years in the masters in “artistic research in and through film”, I realize that I have been wrong all along about what precisely it is that I was researching or doing. Enrolling in this master’s program, I thought I would learn how to use artistic approaches and techniques – film approaches and techniques, more specifically – as methods to pursue through a different perspective the interests as I had been chasing over the fifteen years of my academic life. “Film as method” as I wrote in several of my previous exams and critical reviews. While this objective is still relevant and in fact at the center of my research, what I went through instead is probably best described an anthropological, subjective and corporeal experience of transformation; a proper “rite of passage”. But, interestingly, a rite of passage that doesn’t function like regular rites of passage, because there is no fixed end to it. It took me almost two years, I am still in the middle of it, and I am likely to stay for a big longer. I use this space to write down a few preliminary thoughts for a future publication. I would therefore like to present this longer than usual critical review also as a draft for an auto-ethnographic academic publication about artistic research as a method for the social sciences. The intended audience for this text is thus primarily scholars who are not filmmakers or visual artists. #1 THE RITE OF SEPARATION. Doing things wrong I spent my first year in the master’s program being described by my instructors and my fellow students as “the academic” or “too academic”, a way to distinctively signify that I wasn’t behaving as an “artist” or an “artistic researcher”. While it was natural and light in the beginning, it started taking a toll after a few months, to the point that I had to open myself to the group about it. My first though was: “artistic research”, contrarily to what its name had suggested to me, is not a place for academic researchers to learn about artistic methods – it’s a place for selfcategorized “artists” to do something they call “research” – no matter what that precisely is. Fair enough. I wasn’t an artist per my credentials – I had directed a few documentary films, but none of them could be categorized as “artistic” or particularly “avant-garde”. Most of my professional life had instead been dedicated to a relatively straightforward academic career: research masters in political science at the Institute of Political Science in Paris, doctorate in Paris and in Chicago, assistant professor position in Leiden. Yet I didn’t understand why I was considered so “academic”: I was trying as hard as anyone else to complete the different assigned exercises, surely with less skill and craft than people who were used to shoot and edit by themselves – but I didn’t think that those were necessary attributes that needed to be mastered by a director. I was, after all, experimenting, putting clips on a timeline, and churning out small exercise films like the others. It could have been called “bad filmmaking”. It was called “academic”, in a binary opposition set up as “not academic/good” and “academic/bad”. That seemed quite irritating to me in a program that claimed to do research. For the first entire year of the program, none of the films I was producing seemed to be well received by my peers or by the instructors. I was “thinking logically, not emotionally”. I wanted to “privilege text over image”. I was doing things wrong. Wasn’t this precisely the point of the masters, I thought, to experiment? Why am I consistently told, albeit implicitly, that I am doing things “wrong”? While I was told to “feel free”; to stop “being constrained by my own mental barriers”– which I thought I was doing – I was more often than not receiving polite and embarrassed feedback to my work. None of my strategies worked. “Not personal enough” when I tried to do something close to what I had envisioned, some form of conceptual/visual experiment; “incomprehensible” when I tried to do something “artistic” and “abstract” which I secretly hoped would make “them” happy. Personal? What is meant by that? It was clear to me that the point was not to use the master’s program as a the opportunity for psychotherapy, so what precisely was I supposed to access and to show? Were Harun Farocki, Hito Steyerl, or Johan Grimonprez personal in their work? It seemed to me that these artists were exploring complex questions of representation, power, politics. Why did they have the right to do that and be considered artistic, but not me? I was confused, frustrated and disappointed. I seemed to be constantly misunderstanding what was being asked from me. At the end of the first academic year, despite the adversity, I stubbornly presented a film project which I thought would be a good working laboratory for my long term goal of integrating film methods in my academic practice as a scholar of international politics. It had to do with my concerns for the increased securitization of contemporary global 1