Having remained virtually unchanged for many years, JAR recently updated the form that peer reviewers are given to record their reviews. Both forms, previous and new, consist of a set of questions – or prompts – leading up to a concluding section on desired or requested revisions, as well as an assessment scale.

Expositions are imaginary objects. Even when they are made physically, for instance, on the computer when preparing a submission to JAR, they only work when the elements making up what is assembled come together in a particular form. On its own, each element may offer numerous points of entry and meanings, but in a specific, expositional constellation it supports an image, understanding or sense, even, that can be quite different to what each element on its own can offer.

When JAR started out, we specifically wanted to bracket the question of what artistic research was, to allow for a more experimental space for articulations of practice as research, or expositions, as we call them. By now, some might argue, we have had time enough to conclude what counts and doesn’t count as artistic research, but still we stress that such definitions are not part of JAR’s remit or purpose.