unseen: art-science-analogy

I had grouped the first four speakers through the rubric of "culture".
Geoff Wyvill from Computer Science at the the University of Otago  presented a picture of words and language. Beginning from the premise that 'we' are not very good at speaking to each other, and highlighting the impossibilities of some language when it attempts to be precise, he made the observation that artists and scientists need to be clear, consise and direct in their language. He used some examples of Picasso's paintings and described the manner in which Picasso allowed us to see around a figure, to use multiple cameras (as it were). The suggestion was that although we want to be able to bend light and see from outside a singular body, our langauge still has to retain a simplicity if we are to communicate.

Bridie Lonie from Art Theory at the School of Art demonstrated that language itself is very specific and particular and can contribute its own thought and method to the obects of sight. Framing her discussion with three words: representation, deployment and participation, Bridie constructed a specific kind of narrative from Hans Holbein to Steve Kurtz  http://www.caedefensefund.org/ and CAE (yes, in under 10mins) where the tools of observation and perception were shown to be integral to both science and art. Bridie's talk served to re-knit science and art via language, as if the disciplinary boundaries of the previous 300 years were merely a structural anomoly.

Mike Paulin from the Department of Zoology at the University of Otago http://www.otago.ac.nz/neurozoo/ introduced me to the world of Evolutionary Perception. Mike's work with dogfish has contributed major shifts in our understanding of perception but also in the very structuring of the world. Using complex visualisation tools Mike demonstrated that sharks *know* where they are on the planet at any one time by using magnetic feedback to identify their latitude. Mike has been able to date the perceptive ecology of early evolotion to the precise (give or take a millenia) date when perception evolved: seeweed that 'chooses' its rock.

Peter Stupples from Art Theory at the School of Art followed with a very tightly woven discussion of art and neuroscience. What is central to Peter's work is the way it uses knowledge of neuroscience to redress anomolies and assumptions in art history. This is really important, as art history itself as a discipline needs to be opened up to a cross-displinarity. Using research by Antonio Damasio  http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/bci/faculty1008328.html and Barbara Maria Stafford http://barbaramariastafford.com/ as his building blocks, Peter showed that an artist  is not simply 'influenced' by exposure to (in this case) a piece of Maori carving, but that multiple and complex situational and perceptive influences are at play. It is no longer a game of drawing direct lines. I was reminded of some of Bruno Latour's early work where  science is opened up to critique as a 'discipline'.