Interrogating Methods Event and its Effect on my Views of Art and Science
By Rachel Fleming (04/19/14 18:27:39)
After attending the last few hours of the Interrogating methodologies event, I’m restructuring the way I view art and science in relation to one another. The discussions held either drastically refigured, or caused the creation of a new scaffold for, my ideas about the artistic and scientific process. I am going to summarize my thoughts and questions concerning what I saw at the event. Perhaps my interpretation of the discussion was not correct, but the following is what I gathered.

I’m still figuring out what I think about the artistic process vs. the scientific process. Does the artistic process focus on the aesthetics of the product, as was suggested at one point? Or, does it involve the process, like science?

It seems that, like Jill Scott said, artists fall on a spectrum ranging from interpretive art to illustrative art. For illustrative art it makes sense that the product is usually the main focus. But isn't interpretive art or performing art about the process (and is the process referring to the process of setting up the performance, or the performance itself?)? Even with illustrative art, it seems as though sometimes artists create images for the experience and not for the product. This is what I do sometimes. I paint or draw as a way to relieve stress. Anyway, isn't science also about the product, especially in industry where there are deadlines for products?

It seems to me as though there is no way to categorize art and science based on process vs. product. They both concern each aspect.

Overall, I think that more work needs to be done to fully explain each of the two methodologies individually. What are the goals? What steps are taken? What obstacles does each method encounter? Are there even any notable differences? Perhaps art and science are more similar than we think. Maybe they use the same process and have similar goals. Then again, perhaps there are levels on which they are incompatible, despite the fact that this may make us feel uncomfortable or discouraged. Perhaps they are completely separate but can work together toward common goals, or even toward differing goals.

This has affected my view of arts in relation to science since it has raised many new questions in my mind and has me considering new possibilities and/or limitations for their combination. I'm unsure of how to connect the two at the moment seeing as they both have more complicated goals and methods than I thought.

What will I find out by combining art and life this quarter?


[Write Comment]


Comment by LisaJ (04/26/14 15:00:50):
I don't believe that art is about the aesthetics of a product (even though that is often a component of art), but rather of the aesthetics of methods and process. However, I am not sure if you were there for the panel I introduced, but my point in the introduction was that art should not be defined in relation to aesthetics but rather as "an endeavor in which a set of methods are concurrently and continuously being developed, employed and investigated"