Fine Art is delighted to present a public weekly programme of research lectures and seminars from some of the most interesting and original artists, critics, curators, historians and Art professionals working today.
The Lecture programme is open to the public and other educational institutions. We welcome you to argue and explore the weekly themes posted by students and speakers.
Wednesday 24 October 2007
Kerry Morrison: CULTURE CONSERVATION SCIENCE
In reference to Kerrys talk, can there be synergy between art and science?......discuss
I wondered if Kerry had stopped to consider whether the PHD research carried our by Dr Alicia Prowse on the Himalayan Balsam's could be flawed before she advocated distributing its seeds, especially in light of the overriding majority view from most conservationists and gardeners that the said plant is indeed a menace to indigenous British flora.I think this is an example of how scientists with their usually rigorous protocols collaborating with artists who are more relaxed in their approach can be problematic.
Kerry mentioned that the focus of the scientists was spent entirely on their own sphere of work. I have heard a scientist complain that any progress made can be very limited due to being unable to 'see the forest for the trees'. An artist should have a grasp of the entire picture, even if it is only to ignore certain details and highlight those that matter.
It is necessary that a scientist be restricted by protocol, and necessary that an artist should be free to explore and search their subject. If the work is a true collaboration then it seems that the artist will naturally retain some of that protocol in their work: but only if the artist chooses. This choice is what keeps the work within the realm of Fine Art, and not a scientific experiment.
I think there's always been a natural synergy between art and science on many levels.
In practice both the scientist and artist train by looking at what has been done, and later look for new things that haven't been explored. Both groups create experiments and tests which then lead to things that society can use, which is great. So I guess art is another science, or science is another art, it's all art.
In many ways we are restricted, we have to conform to criterium (?) such as display, techniques, usefulness, and whether or not people care enough to be interested so we're not as free as we think. ooh
I think it's great that an artist is being useful I think it's something we should all strive to do more.
A week has gone by And I wasn’t sure if I should But now I will reply to sue warlock’s comment I think it is important that I respond as it questions ‘integrity’
It is a shame the comment wasn’t raised during the seminar because it raises important points, and brings into consideration why artists and scientists might want to collaborate.
Yes, I considered the arguments for and against Himalayan Balsam. I had worked in the company of conservationists for 12 years prior to meeting Alicia and was very well aware of the arguments to eradicate Himalayan Balsam, but none of the conservationists I had worked along side had ever researched into the actual impact Himalayan Balsam was having on native species - including fauna. They simply believed - and a belief system is not fact. Alicia was one of the first scientists to conduct research into the actual impact of H.B. on native species She completed her PhD in 2001 (if her methodology flawed would she have got her PhD?) but her research outcomes (though rigorously tested) were not popular -
Although there is still a large proportion of people who condone balsam bashing and the continued ‘purification’ of our countryside to retain the ‘English rural idyll’ (sometimes referred to as eco-nazis), more and more conservationists and land managers are recognising that balsam is a species that is co-existing, and not a triffid like plant that is choking our countryside. Many now recognise that H.B., along with many other non-native species, is enriching our landscape and biodiversity. (See Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation special series No.4 13540270) (An interesting outcome of Alicia’s research was evidencing an increase in pollinators in H.B. dense areas - including bumblebees, which had been in decline for many years in the UK)
Alicia and I presented our collaborative work “choice” at the 8th international conference EMAPI (Ecology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions) 2005 www.emapi.us.edu.pl/ The research was well received, and welcomed by the less dogmatic delegates
I need to point out that we did not advocate the distribution of the seeds - we presented people with a choice - hence the title The viewer was given both sides of the argument And before being allowed to vend, they had to sign a contract claiming They understood the basis of the ‘choice’ And that they were holding a future in their hands And they were over 16 years of age
On the contract in bold capital letters - BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU WILL BE UNDERTAKING TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THESE SEEDS And These seeds are given to you as a domestic plant not as wild flowers And One plant is capable of producing more than 800 seeds
finally, I disagree with the generalization; rigorous protocols as applied by science and relaxed approach as applied by the artist. Most professional artists are extremely rigorous and thorough in both research and application.
I hope this addresses some of the doubts raised in the comment
4 comments:
I wondered if Kerry had stopped to consider whether the PHD research carried our by Dr Alicia Prowse on the Himalayan Balsam's could be flawed before she advocated distributing its seeds, especially in light of the overriding majority view from most conservationists and gardeners that the said plant is indeed a menace to indigenous British flora.I think this is an example of how scientists with their usually rigorous protocols collaborating with artists who are more relaxed in their approach can be problematic.
Kerry mentioned that the focus of the scientists was spent entirely on their own sphere of work. I have heard a scientist complain that any progress made can be very limited due to being unable to 'see the forest for the trees'. An artist should have a grasp of the entire picture, even if it is only to ignore certain details and highlight those that matter.
It is necessary that a scientist be restricted by protocol, and necessary that an artist should be free to explore and search their subject. If the work is a true collaboration then it seems that the artist will naturally retain some of that protocol in their work: but only if the artist chooses. This choice is what keeps the work within the realm of Fine Art, and not a scientific experiment.
I think there's always been a natural synergy between art and science on many levels.
In practice both the scientist and artist train by looking at what has been done, and later look for new things that haven't been explored. Both groups create experiments and tests which then lead to things that society can use, which is great. So I guess art is another science, or science is another art, it's all art.
In many ways we are restricted, we have to conform to criterium (?) such as display, techniques, usefulness, and whether or not people care enough to be interested so we're not as free as we think. ooh
I think it's great that an artist is being useful I think it's something we should all strive to do more.
WWW.GETONTHEWALL.COM
A week has gone by
And
I wasn’t sure if I should
But now I will reply to sue warlock’s comment
I think it is important that I respond as it questions ‘integrity’
It is a shame the comment wasn’t raised during the seminar because it raises
important points, and brings into consideration why artists and scientists might want to collaborate.
Yes, I considered the arguments for and against Himalayan Balsam.
I had worked in the company of conservationists for 12 years prior to
meeting Alicia and was very well aware of the arguments to eradicate
Himalayan Balsam, but none of the conservationists I had worked along side
had ever researched into the actual impact Himalayan Balsam was having on
native species - including fauna. They simply believed - and a belief system
is not fact.
Alicia was one of the first scientists to conduct research into the actual impact of H.B. on native species She completed her PhD in 2001 (if her methodology flawed would she have got her PhD?) but her research outcomes (though rigorously tested) were not popular -
Although there is still a large proportion of people who condone balsam bashing and the continued ‘purification’ of our countryside to retain the
‘English rural idyll’ (sometimes referred to as eco-nazis), more and more conservationists and land managers are recognising that balsam is a species
that is co-existing, and not a triffid like plant that is choking our countryside. Many now recognise that H.B., along with many other non-native
species, is enriching our landscape and biodiversity.
(See Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation special series No.4 13540270)
(An interesting outcome of Alicia’s research was evidencing an increase in pollinators in H.B. dense areas - including bumblebees, which had been in
decline for many years in the UK)
Alicia and I presented our collaborative work “choice” at the 8th international conference EMAPI (Ecology and Management of Alien Plant
Invasions) 2005 www.emapi.us.edu.pl/
The research was well received, and welcomed by the less dogmatic delegates
I need to point out that we did not advocate the distribution of the
seeds - we presented people with a choice - hence the title
The viewer was given both sides of the argument
And before being allowed to vend, they had to sign a contract claiming
They understood the basis of the ‘choice’
And that they were holding a future in their hands
And they were over 16 years of age
On the contract in bold capital letters -
BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU WILL BE UNDERTAKING TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THESE SEEDS
And
These seeds are given to you as a domestic plant not as wild flowers
And
One plant is capable of producing more than 800 seeds
finally, I disagree with the generalization; rigorous protocols as applied by science and relaxed approach as applied by the artist. Most professional artists are extremely rigorous and thorough in both research and application.
I hope this addresses some of the doubts raised in the comment
Post a Comment