Methodology
The Foundation’s research is conducted under published methodological principles intended to support evidentiary integrity, transparent interpretation, and the long-term reliability of the cultural record.
Research is grounded wherever possible in primary-source materials, including original artworks, working documents, correspondence, photographs, publications, exhibition records, legal documents, production materials, and contemporaneous media coverage. These principles apply to research articles, white papers, case studies, comparative analyses, Catalogue Raisonné research, collection documentation, and repository records. Each form of research is evaluated according to its purpose, evidence base, and appropriate level of scholarly certainty.
The Foundation distinguishes documented facts from attributed statements, analytical inferences, and interpretive conclusions. Claims concerning authorship, chronology, provenance, exhibition history, influence, or institutional activity must be supported by identifiable and traceable sources. Where evidence remains incomplete, disputed, or subject to continuing investigation, the limits of the available record are stated rather than resolved through assumption.
Research findings are documented so that their evidentiary basis can be reviewed, cited, and, where access conditions permit, independently verified. Sources are assessed in relation to their origin, date, authorship, proximity to the events under examination, and consistency with other available records. Oral histories and participant testimony may supplement the documentary record but are identified as testimony rather than treated as independent confirmation.
The Foundation recognizes that archival and historical research is cumulative. Publications and records may therefore be expanded, corrected, or revised as new evidence becomes available. Substantive changes are documented through dated versions or correction notices, preserving both the integrity of the current record and the publication history through which it developed.
Source Hierarchy
Research gives priority to primary and contemporaneous evidence, including:
Original artworks and working materials
Correspondence and production records
Dated photographs and audiovisual documentation
Exhibition invitations, catalogues, and checklists
Invoices, shipping records, and ownership documentation
Legal filings and official institutional records
Contemporaneous newspapers, magazines, and broadcasts
Published interviews and participant testimony
Technical and material examination
Secondary literature is used to establish context, identify competing interpretations, and trace the later reception of documented events.
Evidence Standards
Assertions concerning authorship, attribution, provenance, chronology, omission, or institutional practice must be supported by identifiable and traceable evidence.
The existence of a source does not by itself establish the accuracy of every claim it contains. Sources are evaluated according to origin, proximity to the event, date, authorship, internal consistency, material condition, and corroboration by independent records.
Later recollection and participant testimony may provide significant evidence but are identified as testimony rather than treated automatically as contemporaneous fact.
Documentation Thresholds
Materials incorporated into research outputs must possess sufficient information to establish:
Identifiable origin
Relevant authorship or custodial history
Approximate or verified date
Relationship to the subject under examination
Material or documentary integrity
Conditions affecting interpretation
Available corroborating or contradictory evidence
Incomplete records may be included when their limitations are explicitly stated.
Fact, Interpretation & Institutional Position
Research distinguishes among:
Documented fact — supported directly by verifiable evidence
Attributed statement — a claim made by an identified source
Inference — a conclusion drawn from the relationship between documented facts
Interpretation — an analytical reading of evidence or cultural context
Institutional position — a stated conclusion or policy of the Foundation
Interpretive claims are not presented as documentary facts. Areas of uncertainty, disagreement, or incomplete evidence are identified where material to the conclusion.
Attribution & Provenance
Attribution research considers chronology, material evidence, production method, studio records, signatures, inscriptions, publication history, exhibition documentation, and ownership history.
Provenance is treated as more than a sequence of owners. Where relevant, it includes the continuity of authorship, production, custody, exhibition, publication, and contextual interpretation.
A lack of documentation is not treated automatically as proof of absence, authorship, or non-authorship.
Comparative Analysis
Visual or conceptual similarity does not by itself establish influence, copying, access, or causation.
Comparative research distinguishes among:
Documented precedence
Demonstrated access
Parallel development
Shared source material
Formal similarity
Cultural transmission
Evidentiary gaps
Where causation cannot be established, the research is limited to documented chronology, observable relationships, and clearly identified interpretation.
Positionality & Conflicts
The Foundation acknowledges its custodial and institutional relationship to Erik Brunetti and his work.
Research concerning Brunetti is therefore supported by cited evidence and, where possible, independently verifiable records. Materials originating from the artist, the Foundation, or interested participants are identified by source and are not represented as independent corroboration.
Potential conflicts of interest, financial interests, or custodial relationships material to a publication should be disclosed within the relevant record.
Authorship Responsibility
Every research output identifies responsible authorship.
Authors are accountable for:
The accuracy of factual claims
The integrity and representation of sources
The distinction between evidence and interpretation
Disclosure of relevant limitations or conflicts
Compliance with citation and reproduction requirements
Correction of substantive errors
Institutional publication does not replace individual responsibility for scholarly rigor.
Revision & Correction
Revision is treated as a normal component of responsible scholarship.
Substantive factual corrections are documented publicly when warranted. Revised publications retain a version history, publication date, and persistent record so that earlier states remain identifiable.
Corrections are additive and transparent; they do not erase the historical existence of previous versions.
Preservation & Citation
Where appropriate, research outputs are deposited in a persistent repository and assigned stable identifiers. Citations should refer to the specific version consulted.
Supporting files may be preserved separately when privacy, copyright, conservation, legal, or contractual restrictions prevent unrestricted public distribution.
Methodological & correction inquiries:
research@erikbrunettifoundation.org