What does science look like? - I was fascinated by the look
of nanotechnology - so initial ideas for the nano project have focused on
image. I thought that it would be interesting to create images that in some way
explore the image of connections, networks.
We have been set a series of questions as part of the
project - I intend to answer them after each meeting - maybe the answers will
evolve - maybe not. Question 1 The nanoscale often requires individuals to try
to make sense of physical structures that are too small to see or touch. Are
there differences in the way artists and scientists perceive or think of
something they can't see?
It seems that the scientists I met were open to not knowing
but they have to believe in some way of the existence of
things/objects/phenomena they cannot see otherwise they cannot go on - there is
no 'truth' or foundation to their work - now it appears that this foundation
can be just an idea of a foundation but it does have to be there and not not
there. I keep returning to the idea that everything we see may not be there or
at least not as we think it is. Meanwhile I think my relationship to this
question might be about aesthetics - a sort of inherent truth (beauty) that is
a concept held within the self (when something is 'just right' - when it's 'finished')
a form of balance. I run a workshop with students around the idea of
finishedness where they create an equation that can be used to make a piece of
work - an obviously impossible and wrongheaded idea but it does get students
thinking about making work, process, audience engagement, display. Possibly
scientists are trying to perceive things that actually exist but can't be seen
and I as an artist am trying to conceive ideas that don't exist - the work is
in some way an illustration of that balance/idea. I don't know I feel that I
may already be uncomfortable with generic absolutes.
