Given the division of labour in the art world, with makers on one side and those who discuss and debate their work (critics and curators) on the other, the notion of research has traditionally been attributed to the latter. In spite of that, in the last twenty years, a new movement has been taking place that acknowledges and opens up new territories to artists who are interested in the inclusion of research within their own work; new courses have been implemented in academia through Master of Arts, and most recently Ph.D. programmes that combine practice and research, often culminating in a visual work accompanied by a written work – a thesis. While welcomed by the artists involved, the new approach is less welcomed by the critics and curators who perceive these new developments as intrusive:

I would like to submit the assertion that this direction does not intrude but simply adds another dimension to the discourse on the arts. Moreover, generations of artists investigated and recorded their thoughts about their work in writing: Leonardo da Vinci in his notebooks, Vincent Van Gogh in his letters to his brother Theo, Konstantin Stanislavski in his autobiography My Life in Art, Jean Cocteau in his diaries and Eduard Verkade in Diary over Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, to mention a few. The artist as researcher, curator and/or critic does not diminish the labour of others; he or she simply brings another perspective and ultimately this approach gives the formally trained art critic and historian new work in evaluating and developing ideas on artists’ point of view.