Philosophy and Perspective

Following on from my last post I was thinking about unpredictability and the creation of new ideas (“Is it possible to have an original thought?”) when I came across this paper on “Creativity, Constraints, and Conceptual spaces” by Margerat Boden.  She says,

“Devotees of the humanities expect to be surprised. An arresting metaphor or poetic image, an unpredicted twist of the plot, a novel style of music, painting, or dance...all these unexpected things amaze and delight us. Scientists, too, appreciate the shock of a new idea--the double helix, the jumping gene, or the benzene-ring. Indeed, unpredictability is often said to be the essence of creativity. 


But unpredictability is not enough. At the heart of creativity lie constraints: the very opposite of unpredictability. Constraints and unpredictability, familiarity and surprise, are somehow combined in original thinking.”

Original thinking and the production of new ideas is easier said than done.  Philosophy teaches us that no idea is essentially new, there are just different ways of presenting and exploring them.  (Case in point: The first entry on this blog is about how I see scientists and artists as translators of the world around us – and then I met Prof.  Sundar Sarrukai who has written an entire book on the similarities between science and translation!)

And when you become involved with a residency like this, I think you have to ask yourself: Are we doing something new here?  If artists have been working with the natural environment for decades now – where does the relevance of this residency lie?

Well, we know that an institution like KHOJ’s wider aim is to ask new questions, where some answers may be found and others may shed light on further areas that need to be explored.  And this is how progressive “alternative art institutions” eventually go down the route of taking on both laboratory and pedagogical functions. (Examples include Homeworks in Lebanon, Sharjah Art Foundation in the U.A.E. and KHOJ in India)

But for me, this residency is primarily about the creation of new perspectives.  Artists and scientists do not have the same starting points, in fact, none of us do – we all come with our own notions of what comprises good art and bad art, what constitutes the domain of science and the roles that both art and science play in society.  This is naturally part of our subjectivity, but if we can come to some kind of mutual, conceptual meeting point, then perhaps we can begin to build upon those existing ideas.

As the art historian Erwin Panofsky once said, “The future is constructed out of fragments of the past – nothing appears ex nihilo.”

So, if we create the conditions for artists, scientists and the wider public to engage in a dialogue in which (often misconceived) notions can be challenged, we can commence to break down traditional barriers – like the recent talk we had at Foundation for Indian Contemporary Art (FICA).  And if we create the conditions in which new artwork, reflective of our zeitgeist, can be produced and received, then we can way contribute in a valid way to the world of contemporary art – like the studio/public work being done during the month-long residency and its review at the opening.

Essentially, interdisciplinary residencies like this try to map out new and less restrictive ways of thinking about art – which is the opening up of perspectives.  And I believe this is what makes a residency like this conceptually, creatively and most importantly contextually relevant.