Sullivan suggests that the debate on arts practice as research and consciousness is open and not very well investigated . ‘It is within a notion of art practice as research that the full potential of cognition and creativity as informing human capacities can be realized. Artistic cognition can be described as seeing and thinking that is partially shaped by the cultural contexts that inform ‘what’ it is we see, and partially governed by the biological processes that connect ‘how’ we see.’ Sullivan, G. (2010). Artistic Cognition and Creativity. In Karlsson, H. & Biggs, M. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts. (pp.99-117). New York: Routledge.

I shall treat this idea of research in fine art as a form of Utopia, it is paradoxical. A paradox the diagram of which is similar to languistic paradoxes, the first part of the sentence negates the second (eg. All is possible, the impossible too). A paradox in research is when you pose an hypothesis which can only be proved with a thesis that negates it (eg. To investigate the nature of the document by creating a live document that loses its ontological status, Cologni E. http://www.bris.ac.uk/parip/cologni.htm). In this case one question is ??????? around how does the recollection of memories in the city effect who we are? I shall adopt a paradoxical systems are the only possible ones for art research: Research that does not answer but poses new questions.