[-empyre-] open imaging
M.Barker at unsw.edu.au
Sun Sep 14 18:29:44 EST 2008
just a response to what Lucette said:
> I'd like to know more how as artists you get inspired more or less
> by certain
> forms of imaging. How it informs you creativity in details.
This is a good question, and whilst I'll answer for myself, I would be
curious about what the others (Paul, Alan, Trish, Tina) think.
For me, working with the 'images of science' has always held great
appeal - conceptually and aesthetically (if they can be separated).
But it can be didactic in the sense that, in more recent times, the
visual outcomes associated with, for example, an MRI image of a brain,
have a strong 'popular' association that often leaves me wondering
when I see an image in an artistic context - so what? Earlier works,
like Justine Cooper's RAPT, http://justinecooper.com/, whilst
employing a full body MRI scan, resolves itself because, I think, the
tactility of the work as an installation, and the rupture this creates
in attempting to get a sense of any kind of wholeness within the work
is not possible. It challenges us in that we are forced to move around
the space and in doing so, the visual reading of the body in its
entirity is constantly fragmented.
So, for me, and the the collaborative work I do with Anna Munster, its
about responding to the processes - and often the problems of the
outcomes - that becomes interesting. Lucette, you mentioned in a
previous post, which Anna picked up on, about the difference between
cognitive functioning the data represented in an MRI. It was precisely
this potentially fraught 'relationship' that prompted Anna and myself
to begin investigating how imaging technologies interpret the
neurologically damaged body. You make the point:
> But careful approach reveals
> complex questions about the interactions of environment and brain
> rather than clear cut differences. There has been many studies and
> it is growing.
This certainly resonates with our work - for us, the imaging
technology is just a starting point for how to engage with, and
respond to, some of the problems we see. Increasingly we are exploring
a more embodied approach to how these processes can inform, for
example, perception, if neurological damage has occurred. The
challenge them becomes one of how to create a work that challenges
perception - by using perception. Arguably, and I believe it is
something that John would have researched, is what artists constantly
do in many ways. So, I guess what I'm saying is, whilst our work is
informed by the imaging devises of the neurosciences, the works we
make are increasingly removed – aesthetically – from the visuals
It also makes me think of Brian's observation:
> Creating the open-ended universe world is a challenge on every
> level, scientific, philosophical, artistic...
I think there is resonance here in terms of Lucette's point about only
now looking at - neurologically - the relationship between environment
and the brain.
PS: And I feel I should clarify, that whilst i completely agree, it
was Alan who made the point about metaphors in the first instance.
More information about the empyre