Arts & International Affairs: Vol. 3, No.3/Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter 2018/2019 | Page 12

INTRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING MULTIMODALITIES
IN ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
it begins from one’s desire to make something happen�and by definition many of its
creations have a transient, fleeting existence. Thus, it is the visible, audible and material
evidence of activities that attest to its social and collaborative dimensions. These are the
ways in which DiY practitioners document their own actions. But the trope of collaboration
can be extended to include the researcher, too (Chrysagis and Karampampas
2017). The openness of DiY creativity affords a genuine�almost mundane�form of
collaboration between researcher and participants; because of its ubiquitous nature, it
cannot be separated from everyday action as a special realm of practice. As such, it would
be difficult to tease out the formal characteristics of this emergent collaboration.
Yet, three points need to be highlighted about research practices surrounding DiY: first,
research in music practices is by definition collaborative even when researchers are not
participating musicians, in the sense that audiences are absolutely essential to the successful
execution of music events (Small 1998). After all, being present before, during
and after music events make it impossible not to contribute toward what is going on,
even if that contribution is minimal, such as helping on the door or carrying stuff in
preparation for the live event. Second, research participants increasingly demonstrate
a nuanced understanding of what researchers are looking for and help them achieve
it: in ethnographic fieldwork, for example, the traditional “informant” has become a
“‘reflexive’ subject” engaged in research collaboration with the anthropologist (Marcus
2008:7). In Chrysagis’ case, this became apparent in discussions that conveyed his respondents’
knowledge of what ethnography is, what anthropologists do, and how academic
research is disseminated. Third, precisely owing to the ephemeral nature of DiY
activities, research outputs usually begin where DiY practitioners’ documentation of
their activities ends, while also attempting to bring into view events, practices and materials
hitherto neglected or forgotten. There is no “salvage” impetus to this; rather, in
many instances, documentation becomes a by-product of fieldwork practice and subsequent
collaboration: for example, one of Chrysagis’ case studies would upload on their
website videos of gigs he had shot, while artists who regularly designed posters for DiY
music events would provide him with images for academic publications.
The latter example raises an important issue about multimodal publishing, namely
that, while the dissemination of research need not be a priori multimodal�although,
to some extent, multimodality is a dimension of all research�it ought to be so when
the subject matter demands it. Even in traditional contexts of research dissemination,
such as academic conference “paper” presentations, multimodality can be present: distributing
“zines” (fanzines), flyers and records or building presentations as audio-visual
collages instead of listings bulletpoints have been effective presentation techniques
adding a “felt” dimension to Powerpoint slides. If DiY can be perceived as a form of
“bricolage,”�a patchwork constructed from a limited amount of material resources and
not defined in terms of a project but by its potential use (Lévi-Strauss 1966:17–18; see
also Luvaas 2012:110–111, 122–123)�then it emerges as a blueprint for research and
publication practices.
9