This talk was part of a series of events held by the BA in collaboration with artafterscience and Barbara Zanditon and took place at the Dana Centre in London. Setting the scene to how context may affect meaning, was an artwork where the audience could listen to a juxtaposition of several short audio cuts from scientists’ interviews accompanied by a series of seemingly random footage of nature. Also, the panels voices could be heard which included Mark Lythgoe (neuroscientist, Institute of Child Health), Shini Somarathne (science presenter) and R. Beau Lotto, (neuroscientist, University College London). With the initial part of the talk mainly focusing on presenting the parties and their brief comments on the work, the audience were quickly brought into the discussion. Mark Lythgoe, who appeared the more prominent speaker of the three, made a point that the work perhaps removed the audience from the more delightful and fun (maybe geeky humour – Lythgoe’s own words) perspective of science. Though being a science presenter, Shini Somarathne seemed to struggle with understanding the work and getting to grips with how she would communicate the discussion further. Shared by the neuroscientists was the joy and excitement found in the speculative points on the borderlines of knowledge where there was much less certainty.
Discussions touched lightly on various ideas that related to both the artwork, objectivity of science, art & science and the clarification of using the concept of randomness and certainty. Questions such as: How do you differentiate between patterns and coincidence or synchronicity? How is the concept of randomness used in this context? Is it the information theory definition of Shannon & Wiener? What about the other side of fractal pattern, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, genetic mutation or the game of life? When is science subjective? How does the science thinking influence ones personality? Do scientists use science as a guarding shield that they attach to their personality to produce a knowledge wall? Is art and science really a separate process and how does the creativity vary? Science has a use - what is the use of art? How do scientists deal with artists now using their tools and visa versa?
The discussion never really took off or accumulated in any particular insight. Perhaps the most interesting point came from the neuroscientists in describing their joy and excitement of speculation.