As you might gather from previous posts, Claire Beynon has been a constant source of inspiration in exploring the art/science interface. Our projects leave me puzzled at times, but they always foster playful curiosity. We are now collaborating with Schenectady artist/educator Chris Moran to help promote art, science, and their common element of curiosity through an upcoming workshop sponsored by the Capital Region Center for Arts in Education.
A puzzling moment (for me; Claire is amused) in the studio
Curiosity is a powerful driving force. In an evolutionary context, the adaptive significance of curiosity seems quite obvious: It prompts an individual to discover new resources (food, shelter, material goods), to find solutions to problems (e.g., cure an ailment), to select a compatible mate, and to occupy a comfortable social setting. At a personal or psychological level, however, curiosity presents many challenges. The risks and rewards of acting on our curiosity must be weighed carefully in order to optimize the outcome, which is the measure of success (and a definition of wisdom).
Modern science employs a well-scripted process - the scientific method - to act on curiosity. Adhering to this approach provides us with verifiable (more accurately, falsifiable) information which, in sum, has freed humanity from reliance on chance or superstition. Metaphorically, the scientific method provides us with the factual tools needed to navigate successfully the labyrinth of nature.
I wonder if the scientific method can help us explore imagined worlds, where outcomes are not necessarily the product of natural law? This question must have been asked a thousand times already. I'd love to hear from an artist who has formalized hypotheses, conducted controlled experiments, and analyzed the results with some measure of statistical significance.
Modern science employs a well-scripted process - the scientific method - to act on curiosity. Adhering to this approach provides us with verifiable (more accurately, falsifiable) information which, in sum, has freed humanity from reliance on chance or superstition. Metaphorically, the scientific method provides us with the factual tools needed to navigate successfully the labyrinth of nature.
I wonder if the scientific method can help us explore imagined worlds, where outcomes are not necessarily the product of natural law? This question must have been asked a thousand times already. I'd love to hear from an artist who has formalized hypotheses, conducted controlled experiments, and analyzed the results with some measure of statistical significance.
More importantly, I'd love to know how they measure success. And I wonder if that success defines artistic wisdom...
Posts
"I'd love to hear from an artist who has formalized hypotheses, conducted controlled experiments, and analyzed the results with some measure of statistical significance."
ReplyDeleteGreetings Sam,
It's darned difficult finding any worthy male bloggers, something I vented about on my own blog just recently. But I found your blog to be an exception, it's a most stimulating read!
Anyway, regarding your er, quest (for want of a better word) - I might be able to assist. I certainly meet the three criteria you specify, having developed hypotheses out of decades of study, conducted exhaustive controlled experiments (on myself and vicariously, on others), and then analysed the results to generate a set of falsifiable theories (insofar as the experiments are repeatable).
The result is my blog, which I have just recently commenced - only after evaluating whether I might indeed have some ideas worth disseminating. I anticipate though that my initiative will be a substantial undertaking, so it is very much in embryonic form at present.
"I wonder if the scientific method can help us explore imagined worlds, where outcomes are not necessarily the product of natural law?"
The short answer is "in my experience, yes". The laws may be markedly different, but they nevertheless conform to the criteria of what constitutes a law - they are absolute within their realm of influence.
OK then, All The Best!
Thank you for commenting (and for not annihilating me!) - I think I see your point: good fiction results from setting up the right boundary conditions, conducting careful thought experiments, and re-testing their outcomes. Success, then, would be plausibility of the outcome without the introduction of new boundaries (i.e., supernatural elements). Am I on the right track? I look forward to following your blog;}
ReplyDeleteYes, you have the gist of it Sam :) Obviously, credible fiction is a commentary on the human experience, and so should be devoid of 'supernatural elements' that cannot be substantiated. This is what daleks refer to as "mythic thinking" - a bit like resorting to cheat-codes in order to support what are otherwise untenable hypotheses. I'll be blogging about that in the future.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a slippery line, very easily crossed. This is why I am currently creating a Glossary to accompany the blog - to keep myself honest, and prevent such elements creeping in and undermining the credibility of the narrative.
It's a bit of a chore, creating a Glossary - still, well-prepared foundations seem essential.
All The Best!