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.