Dad,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you with a response. Your email was full of good questions but none of them are very easy for me to answer. The short answer to the big question of how science and art can interact with each other in a meaningful way is: "I am still figuring that out, and probably will be for a while".
The key areas of overlap that I see are related to process. Maybe surprisingly, both fields typically involve identifying a "problem" or question, extensive experimentation or structured observation, and critique by peers.
The differences between the fields can be pretty vast, however. The most significant for me surrounds the fundamental issue of representation: scientists are obliged to generate representations, or models of the world, that capture some aspect of its reality; artists are not at all obliged to do so, though some choose to try.
The result of that difference is that the products of science (i.e. models of the world) can be evaluated according to how well they explain observations. The models can be right or wrong, or right in a specific context, but not in all contexts. (As you know, the source of the hormones that induce egg development in starfish can be identified for one species but that does not mean it is the same for all species.)
The products of artistic endeavor are not subject to that same sort of evaluation unless they make specific claims about reality. Typically, it doesn't mean anything to say a piece of art is right or wrong. But works of art can engage the sensibilities of viewers more or less convincingly, and ask them to consider the values, priorities, or perceptions that structure their life. Georges Braque was not right or wrong to paint "cubist" structures but it did influence how people considered the nature of space and perception.
With respect to my work, yes, number, sequence, and characteristics of the images were all really important. In the process of making a final edit for the show it was amazing to me how switching the order or identity of just one or two images changed everything quite dramatically. Apparently small things do matter.
And, yes, I struggle with how much I want to explain the imagery. I realize it may not be immediately accessible and I think it is actually a hard group of pictures to negotiate but it becomes something else altogether, and less alive in my opinion, if it has too many words trying to define it.
You mentioned at one point during the weekend that it was like a puzzle. That is exactly right. I want people to look and to think. I want people to feel some underlying structure in the images but maybe not quite be able to define it. Isn't that part of the sensation that scientists feel when approaching a new study site or study organism? Isn't that part of the allure? Maybe I am just trying to replicate it in a way. That approach seemed more provocative to me than producing images that have a single "answer".
The work is not to everyone's taste. I know that for sure. But I think it has been born, somewhat uniquely, from my backgrounds in science and art. I am not sure if any of this helps, but I hope so.
Love,
J
No comments:
Post a Comment