30th April 2004

During conversation this morning, John Dupre (director of Egenis) remarked that it is possible that too much emphasis is given to explanation in a field where not everything can be explained. I find this comment most helpful as I try to fathom my role as an artist at Egenis.

I do not think it would be particularly useful, for example, to attempt to directly represent (and thus give some sort of explanation of) the form of the genome. In fact, there is some debate about whether the genome is a construct rather than a material object. And if one takes it as an object, then the word 'object' will tend to bias perception toward solids and boundaries. Perhaps the role of the artist is to highlight the paradoxes/discrepancies in how the genome is conceptualised? Art might be useful as a means of opening up an 'unresolved' space between ideas and material objects (the surrealist poem/object is a good example of this).

John recommended a book Revolution and Beauty in Science, James Mc'Allister which I am now trying to get hold of.