One of my experiments was to see if I could write a scientific paper about my art (as if it was science).
To test a boundary condition between art and science.
In the paper I talked about the experiment I did with Dr. Matt Broome (experimental quantum physicist), where I ‘placed’ him in the room with the Evolver machine and invited how to interact with it in any way he saw fit – essentially to see if I could observe measurable attributes.
This all stemmed from an observation I made at CSIRO in 2017 where I constructed two evolver-like machines during a month-long residence and during a performance of the machines where scientist volunteers were invited to operate the machines – the machines behaved temperamentally and the chain kept coming off of the one. A nightmare! But what happened next was quite beautiful. Scientists gathered around the machine and gently coaxed it into – transient – operation.. an act that was captured in the machines recording – a genuine interaction of humans and machines.
Image of machine recording of interaction between evolver-like machine and scientists – a capture of a genuine collaboration between humans and machines.
This I realised was the point of what the process was leading me to.. machines are nucleators of behaviour and the behaviour is dependent on what kind of machine it is. Machines like toasters predict and nucleate usually quite specific behaviours.. but machines like The Evolver, because they have no purpose other than to have behaviours, nucleates / compels / invites less predictable behaviours. I was interested to see if I could measure this.
But as an artist.
Could I love this machine? Machines – I worry – don’t get me… so I am trying to reach them.. these strange things I am sometimes.. against my will.. compelled to construct.. that’s what I am trying to get to the heart of… Can I understand them? Can they Understand me.
Here is the paper that got accepted at the International Symposium of Electronic Arts which was held in Brisbane (Meanjin Country in First Nation’s language).
The conference was brilliant. Got to meet some of my art idols / heroes / mentors that I have admired from afar: Helen Pynor; Chris Henschke; Leah Barclay; Laura Jade; Kenneth Lambert; Melissa Delaney (Australian Network of Art and Technology). Also some new ones… The insightful Angie Abdilla and Galit Ariel – artists definitely worth looking into.
It was very interesting to see what the field looked like. I have been working in this field for a dozen years without really knowing its length and breadth – or the lay of it. The one thing that was very gratifying (and validating for me).. was the notion of studying art at a teriery level. I never did and I came away feeling relieved that I didn’t. It became clear to me that my voice would not be what it is if I had and I felt unique and with a sense that the way I travelled was the way I needed to travel. The Abrahamic myth – wandering unanchored into the unknown – resonated. I recall over the years meeting prominent people in the art world who suggested I go to Uni and I am just glad I didn’t – I trusted that my science training was my vehicle to be an artist. One of the presenters – an academic artist was giving a talk where he spoke about transdisciplinary methodology and Paul Thomas – wise man, cantankerous veteran of the field.. said.. yes.. that’s all good and well.. but where is the undisciplinary in art!? And that resonated completely with me.. art is on this quest to be credible.. but it’s supposed to be incredible.. right!?
loved giving my talk.. as I was walking up… I had been nervous.. but on the approach felt 100% myself.. and just did my thing… and the feedback was really gratifying and validating.
Some examples- and am paraphrasing a bit
“I thought it was both funny and interesting.” She (this artist who I wont name for now).. was very interested in my humiliation [which I felt when the machines weren’t working as I thought they should at CSIRO];
“It was very personal; I was in it.”
“I never knew where it was going next in the talk” and I responded that in a sense that mirrored exactly what it was because it was in a constant state of re-invention / evolution. When it was one thing – like a drawing machine.. I saw other artists making much more sophisticated drawing machines.. so it became.. well.. it can’t be that! so it will be something else.
One of my biggest conclusions / take homes from the conference.. was.. like the academic who used transdisciplinary methodology… I was also interested in taking my work Out There – into the world – but I am performing as a scientist.. performing a measurement. I am not trying to be credible.. I am not trying to BE a scientist.. as Paul Thomas says.. this academicization is curtailing what an artist should be… the artist should be dangerous in some sense.. and often – maybe not always – academia is a constraint on the artist..
In the guise of the scientist
playing with the idea of being credible.
When I am performing a measurement I am playing with the idea of engaging in a credible objective process..
this is maybe what motivates me not to be in a credible gallery;
be out on the street.
Busking
That lacks
Credibility
But also challenges the institutions who hold the measure of what is credible.. and what is not.
