The following diagram and classifications have been taken from the 5th Chapter of Graeme Sullivan’s 2004 book Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. While there can be many other ways of situating or defining your practice; and while many creative practices are far too complex to allow for an easy classification, Sullivan's approach may nevertheless be useful as you are starting out in identifying where you may belong in the wide spectrum of contemporary art and design - however do not approach it as a given, but rather look at it critically, to see how, and indeed if you fit in here:


The questions to ask whilst looking at this diagram could be:
  • "which of these areas makes the most sense to me/makes me identify with the strongest?" 
  • "or is the area that I identify with not in here at all? In which case - what is it that is missing?"
  • "which terminology do I feel most comfortable/familiar with?" 
  • "which of these keywords inside the triangles fit my concerns/can be applied to my output?"
  • "how would it work if I were to make new combinations out of what is here, since some of this does apply to me, however is not in the right place?"
  • "or are my keywords not in here at all?"
  • "or do I not fit in here not only when it comes to the keywords - the locus and the overall schema are problematic for me also."
And if you do not feel that you fit into this schema, or if only parts of it apply to you, or if you think that you cross its boundaries, or that it is way too restrictive, or incomplete for your purposes - try making your own diagram based upon Sullivan's, by moving things around, coming up with new relations, also by adding your own terminology, connections and keywords if this is needed.

And here is an excerpt from Sullivan's chapter that further defines the three fields in the diagram above:

"For artists working within the general area designated Making in Systems there is a desire to move beyond discipline boundaries and into areas of inquiry that interact and intersect and require new ways to concep¬tualize forms and structures. For instance, artist-theorists working at the interface of art and science within the digital environment are finding that past notions of theory and practice no longer serve as adequate systems around which to define plans and actions. As such, concepts of collaboration are grounded less on notions of expert systems that divide up roles in terms of ends and means, or design and delivery, but more like a shared wonder that requires new ways of thinking about visual and virtual systems of inquiry. 

Making in Communities might be seen to incorporate the visual arts practice of those artists working within the orbit of community-based art practice who look to dislodge restrictive paradigms of thought. For instance, indigenous art practice can be considered in this way, as Western conceptions of the art object or the scientific method of inquiry cannot be expected to accommodate the interlacing nature of experience and understanding that is at the heart of indigenous knowing. 

On the other hand, those contemporary artists whose practice might be seen to encompass the broad area of Making in Cultures use their hybrid experiences growing up and working across countries and cultures as a basis for their imaginative and intellectual experiences. Examples might be artist-theorists working from a cultural reference located within Asia and the Middle East who provide insightful images that “talk back” within the cultural diaspora in ways that open up new dialogue and dislodge old myths." 

You can read the full chapter here: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/11016_chapter5.pdf