Smith & Dean (2009) describe the practice-led research as a two-fold approach of “creative work in itself [as] a form of research and [a] generat[or] [of] detectable research outcomes” and of “creative practice [as] the training and specialist knowledge that creative practitioners have and the processes they engage with… lead[ing] to specialist insights”
I would be inclined to split this into a triple articulation of creative practice – the application of knowledge and processes, studio practice as research method, and the development of creative outcomes. however, this triple articulation can be difficult to elucidate clearly as each affects the others, often in reflexive and looping ways. Artists are train to catenate (from chemistry: to connect in series in chains or rings) concept ideas, visual influences, text etc. in what can often seem to outside observers as a capricious fashion, often following their intuition.
The application of intuition in a vigorous research context may be seen as flimsy but I want to make an argument that by framing the cyclic creative process as hacking, the artist and other creative practitioners can trace and track their intuitive leaps.