I started with a big obsidian canvas where I thrown every ideas and reference in thematics clouds of text, and at certain point organize all this in a linear text in macos pages (it sucks, don't use it for a thesis).
I was really surprised by the lack of studies on the DAW and the presets, and by the overwhelming amount of studies about making sound with movement.
In a similar way, I found loads of things about complex mappings, using AI or cutting edge physics emulation, but only *one* paper about trying to make a classification of the basic mapping tools in the form of a pure-data plugin.
It seems so weird to me that people can go into such details without researching the base before.
At a time I got pretty deep into "why am I even bothering to research this subject, we don't even know why me are making art".
The research format really coax you into doing things a certain way. It was weird having the sensation that you could do *anything* but slowly realizing that people are waiting for something really precise. You can do anything, but you got to be really good to make it fit the frame. I found this citation in a book :
The book does not address the adult end-state of productive competence, because comparatively little is known about how any given type of artist produces a work of art. Psychologists have tended to focus on the perception of art rather than on its creation, probably because the former lends itself more readily to study in a laboratory or an experimental setting.
Ellen winner in Invented worlds
It really limited me, some of the subject above I avoided because I was having a hard time making it fit. Mainly the subject of instrument GUI. You'll find a lot of infos about efficient GUI, or complex physical interfaces for augmented instrument, but weirdly, almost no one as explored the space of creative GUI.
Creative digital tools are such a niche, 99,9% just wants "intuitive interfaces", it makes it hard to imagine alternatives.
And since you need a literature review and that I ain't got any literature to review, I would have need to jumps through hoops to make it acceptable.
Yet there is so much to try on the form of research !
Especially in the domain of art, where there is no real truth to be found.
It's so weird trying really hard to appear objective when you know perfecly well you aren't. Expose your bias at the beginning, try to mitigate them, but please keep you personality, don't "the autor thinks" me.
Discussing with one of my directors, he mentioned that is was possible to keep subjectivity in an essay, but that the objectivity way was just easier to conform to, that subjectivity in science required skills and sensitivity that comes from writing a lot.
Which is a very good point, that I understand whitout being able to totally shake off the weirdness of the feeling. I think evolving in this very specific junction of art and technics amplify this feeling.
I found that the linearity (text goes from top to bottom in a logical manner) is an interesting way to force yourself to order you thought, but coming from internet and the hyperlink, it could be cool to see more "modular" thesis. Rodrigo Constanzo did a nice use of the html for his PhD.
Also, please make jokes, it made my day so much more pleasant when I stumble on a good joke in a research paper.
Mine is rather dull, I just want my diploma after all. I'll keep researching, for myself, because I need it. But probably never in an academic context again, I'll prefer a format-less freedom.