ayarnwithinandbetween

well another day at the castle museum in Norwich in the build your own exhibition - this time it was knit-natter-publish - a really lovely session - the conversation flowed whilst fingers moved - subjects included feminism, the position of 'women's work', education, undervalued activity, tradition, learning, The prison service, Norfolk demographics, the value of small-talk and well-being through textiles. the text is a work in progress and the session was more of a pilot testing ground as to how we could explore the connections in the future. there was talk of doing something in the Forum.

its my first time

but I have always been here

there

in the moment - a memory of the muscle

my mother

my gran my nan my grandmother

lineage

a line

a conversation between

a yarn

within and between

fingers

wound up

women's small talk

then onto Cambridge for a follow-up session as part of the Nano project including a tour of The Maxwell Building - stunning- slightly envious of its thoughtful design - spaces which are dynamic and yet leave freedom for the individual to really reflect/think - meeting casually is where the real work and creativity happens. The amount of communal space is extraordinary - its almost as if it was designed with discussion and collaboration in mind - the science world does seem to of taken the best of what we used to do - buying sofas to sit - they are on the ball with this issue - okay - the most bizarre disconnected random eclectic surreal in the real Surrealist sense of juxtaposition and did I mention bizarre film ever - The Holy Mountain - unsure how I missed this gem but it really is fantastical - the tiny hand-crocheted capes for the 'battling lizards' is the lease odd moment in the whole thing! drugs are not necessary. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071615/ finally - tickets for Star Wars booked - tick - the experience anticipated - tick - most excellent

theritualofwork

 

what a most excellent day at Cavendish Lab in Cambridge -  everybody was so generous with their time and dedicated to sharing their experience - totally engaged in the process of knowledge exchange. it was a very full day of experiencing and challenging spaces within which to consider many new activities. Although invisible there is an obvious flow diagram of decision making within each specific activity and the process as a whole.  This is made apparent by the seriousness of the approach to the activity. self assembly is I now know a key component to what I do or at least how I think - but maybe not in a straightforward 'science ' way - I am interested in creating objects with multiple possible outcomes or systematic structures or non-linear narratives for others to work with or within or 'play' with. That there is no right or wrong way is very important to me but just components to enable. Thinking tools. Tools for thinking. Obviously one is struck by the ritual of work - the oppressive otherness of the clean room brings with it a heightened awareness of one's activity, can the wearing of a garment alter ones perception of the activity that is been undertaken? This could be something to explore with my students - art uniforms, creative capes! The pace of working is also something to consider - I was very taken by the methodical process of evidencing activity; cleaning, counting, arranging, monitoring, calculating, noting. Even the act of looking takes time and energy. The day's activity sparked many thoughts about art/science parallels and often the actual activity was the same, although often at a smaller scale. From the spin painting promoted by Damien Hurst, fixing and photography 'developing' work, the many types of printmaking, the resists and opposites, the silkscreen with its mesh and layers, etching working with positive and negative 2D spaces. So far this whole process has given me a new way of thinking and therefore supported my writing about my creativity. Ideas have been sparked while searching for parallels or taking my world into the world of science and testing out common knowledge, for example thinking about Duchamp and Duchampian thinking - becoming art, and the world of topography, definitions and categories - it is art if an artist says so - can intention define activity? Everything comes under the umbrella of science but could the same activity be redefined by what you are trying to do, or actually focusing on? - be it physics, chemistry, engineering or is it a combination of some or all or is it at a certain level all physics? What is the purpose of the/an experiment? the concept of the experiment - that even though something hasn't worked knowledge is gained and so it is useful - so does the concept of a failed experiment actually exist as knowledge always occurs (if you look for it). Can this be used with students or actively in my studio? Coming into contact with science language and thinking has introduced new phrases or enabled me to rethink ones I thought I understood - the concept of structural colour - weak interaction forces shape - the basis for self assembly - materials form wrinkles to relieve stress - release and stick - crease and stress - graphene origami - self folded closed form structures - at the fold properties are more reactive - folding along preferred directions - the use of paper grain - self folding

whatdoessciencelooklike

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. 

frightenlysmallworlds

The latest interdisciplinary project with scientists is upon me. I'm working with nanotechnology within the Cavendish laboratory which is within the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge.
An extraordinary afternoon of discussion - it was a joy to be in a room of bright, inquisitive, interesting people. The bonus was that they are also interested in and value what I do and think that they might learn from my presence in their lives - sounds a bit like a good learning/teaching experience.
I said that my intention for the project was that I wanted to be lost, to not know, and to fail gloriously. This was taken on board by the fellow members of my group and it will become a starting point for me. I managed to articulate this idea - that In some way I want the collaborative experience to deliver new (to me) ways of working and I hope that the people I am about to work with will contain and exacerbate my confusion, that their focused intention will bring some form of clarity to my studio.
We are going to meet and exchange in Cambridge - actually engaging in 2 experiments - something about clean rooms, electron microscopes and wave particles and then a sharing of the folding I'm involved in after a mini workshop of the history of book structures leading to hybrid combination binding and then an exploration of the multi-functional, folded, structurally articulated objects I'm working on in my studio.
As ever I started with the small question - how big is an electron? - apparently nobody knows (who knew) and yet much of our world is dependant on believing in it's existence. I'm excited to be working with people who are reforming and attempting to fold material at a 'frightening small scale' and the other project is attempting to use the waves that vibrate from everything as a source of energy - at this point I revert to science fiction and talk about Darth Vada, the death star and the dark image of evil science. I go on to ask if they are working with actual things they can see or is it evidence of existence (its exciting how much of my discussions with scientists get to philosophical thinking much quicker that my 'art' people - but what does science look like? - the idea of 'the science of looking' got me thinking about the Eye and Brain by R.L. Gregory, a book that as a student clarified my thinking around this subject. The agreement that the mainstream is as wrong and as mediocre on its coverage of science as it is on the arts felt like coming home. Other topics include the need for failure along with transgression in our lives to learn and the testing of boundaries to move forward - all good practice as far as I'm concerned.
I left full of optimism and excited to get back to my studio.
Some things for me to think about - our use of and engagement with rules - mainly through materials - us controlling them and the materials containing us and our ideas. Is this different for art and science? Yes and no - I feel that I can just change the rules as I change the work and intention - this is different within the design work I'm engaged in where there is a set brief that has specific material needs and roles for the work. The idea of the live hinge and its relationship to nanotechnology through the idea of molecular alignment. I shall be trying to not answer any questions just explore them