How can art and science be used to imagine a shared future?

Patricia Piccinini, Australia b.1965 / The Young Family 2002 installed at GOMA, 2018 / Silicone, fibreglass, leather, plywood, human hair; ed. 1/3 / 80 x 150 x 110cm / RHS Abbott Bequest Fund 2003 / Collection: Bendigo Art Gallery, Vic. / © The artist

Patricia Piccinini, Australia b.1965 / The Young Family 2002 installed at GOMA, 2018 / Silicone, fibreglass, leather, plywood, human hair; ed. 1/3 / 80 x 150 x 110cm / RHS Abbott Bequest Fund 2003 / Collection: Bendigo Art Gallery, Vic. / © The artist / View full image

Patricia Piccinini Writing Competition

How can art and science be used to imagine a shared future? Ask the kids. They know how to do it.

Get them early, before they’re taught that science and art are in conflict. That’s wrong. Art and science are united by creativity. In art, it’s obvious where people use their imagination. It can be harder for people to understand that science is just as creative, especially if their only experience with it was in a classroom. Science is not a detached, clinical compilation of facts in a textbook. That is how it’s presented to society, but that is not how it’s conducted.

The facts are the output, but science itself is a process of discovery. Scientists work on questions that don’t have answers and, sometimes, questions that have never been asked. Curiosity leads the search and creativity finds the solution. Scientists are explorers and problem solvers. Science isn’t about what you know, it’s about what you ask and how you ask it. The keystones of science are curiosity and creativity.

Patricia Piccinini, Australia b.1965 / The Young Family 2002 / Silicone, fibreglass, leather, plywood, human hair; ed. 1/3 / 80 x 150 x 110cm / RHS Abbott Bequest Fund 2003 / Collection: Bendigo Art Gallery, Vic. / © The artist

The art and science mindset

Kids are born with the potential to be scientists and artists, but we train them out of it. If they dare to dream big, society tries to wake them. Soon enough, they want to grow up, get through school and into a stable desk job. They want someone to tell them everything they need to know – right and wrong and nothing more – because that makes their lives simple and easy.

The children who escape, who grow into scientists and artists, have something in common. They ask why and why not. There is a difference between thinking and knowing, and these kids like thinking.

There is a thrill in creating a thought and making something out of it. When we seek the instant gratification of pre-programmed answers, we miss out. If we linger on what we already know, then our world is full of answers and there is no room left for imagination. The more we know, the less we tend to think. We cannot even imagine how much more is out there.

Thinking is difficult. You need to accept that you don’t know all the answers and resist the temptation to accept, at face value, the first suggestion that comes along. There is a fine line between imagining things that could fill the gaps and deluding yourself into calling it a fact.

The more you learn, the more you realise how much you don’t know, and will never know. If you start thinking, you will quickly gather more questions than answers. It’s terrifying. It’s hard.

Don’t let that stop you.

There is beauty in complexity and ambiguity. Embracing uncertainty is humbling and life-changing. It opens your mind to things beyond right and wrong. It removes a filter, and suddenly you no longer see the world in plain black and white, but in its wonderful and mysterious nuances.

You see a more complete picture, because the world isn’t clear-cut into right and wrong, into scientists and artists. The closer you look, the blurrier the distinction becomes.

If artists don’t experiment, they won’t create anything new. If scientists aren’t creative, they don’t make discoveries. If you take away the hours of practice in different areas and go to the core of a person you will see that scientists are artists, and artists are scientists. They are just the people who refused to grow up.

The future?

Combined, art and science have the power to unite humanity with understanding and creativity. There is no conflict, they reinforce each other. We already know this. We can imagine the technology and advancements.

Here is a question we haven’t answered: why haven’t we made this ideal future a reality yet?

I think the answer is clear. We don’t have enough artists and scientists. So let the robots take our desk jobs. Instead of programming kids in binary right and wrong, we’ll program the AIs and we’ll teach the kids how to think. That would be a good start.

Then, we can ask the kids to imagine their future, and when they grow up, they’ll be ready to create it.

Patricia Piccinini, Australia b.1965 / The Welcome Guest 2011 / Silicone, fibreglass, human hair, clothing, taxidermied peacock; ed. 1/3 + 1 AP / Dimensions variable / Courtesy: The artist; Tolarno Galleries, Melbourne; Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, Sydney; and Hosfelt Gallery, San Francisco / © The artist

Read more on our blog / Watch exclusive interviews and behind-the-scenes footage on YouTube / Listen on Spotify / Visit our website

Known for her imaginative, yet strangely familiar, lifelike hybrid creatures, Piccinini invites us to think about our place in a world where advances in biotechnology and digital technologies are challenging the boundaries of humanity. ‘Patricia Piccinini: Curious Affection’ occupies GOMA’s entire ground floor with a retrospective of her most recognisable works from the past 20 years, and a suite of immersive multisensory installations. The exhibition is exclusive to Brisbane from 24 March – 5 August 2018.

Lauren Thornton is joint winner of ‘Patricia Piccinini: Curious Affection’ Emerging Creatives Writing Competition. Propositions on Imagined Futures: How can art and science be used to imagine a shared future.

Feature image: Patricia Piccinini’s The Young Family 2002, installed in ‘Curious Affection’, GOMA 2018

Related Stories

  •
    Read •

    Looking at Patricia Piccinini’s monsters looking at us

    Our culture — its art, music, theology and techno-science — is filled with the promises of monsters, that is to say, the irreverent energy of those who deviate from prescriptive normality. Known for her imaginative lifelike creatures, visit ‘Patricia Piccinini: Curious Affection‘ at GOMA until 5 August 2018, and ponder our place in a world where advances in technology are challenging the boundaries between human and monstrous hybrid creatures. The connotations of that very term — monsters — however, tell a significant tale about our collective relationship to those who are otherwise embodied, both anthropomorphic — having human characteristics, and animal. Considered ‘other’, it is as if monstrous, non-human, animal and hybrid others inhabit a specific dimension that endows them with exceptional imaginary and metamorphic powers. They are both less-and-more than human, and other-than human at the same time. Connection and empathy are at the heart of my practice. My creatures are imaginary beings that are almost possible. They are not always traditionally beautiful, but they have a beauty and an honesty within them. They are more vulnerable than threatening. Patricia Piccinini Piccinini’s monstrous bodies blur the distinction between normal and pathological, self and other, human and non-human, and, in this capacity, they are a privileged site of phantasmic projection. Their influence on the cultural imagination is far-reaching: hybrid, monstrous bodies are cast in the mode of a familiar, yet threatening, otherness — a quasi-kin. They embody ontological impropriety. As objects of simultaneous wonder and fear, admiration and disgust, they cause a disturbance in the status quo, evoking a mixture of fascination and loathing. Whatever the response, they are culturally produced as sensational objects of visual display. There is also a paradoxically reassuring quality about them: their hybrid, monstrous bodies have already undergone a catastrophic mutation and have survived. Most people go through life dreading that they will have to confront a traumatic experience, but monsters already have. They embody both the trauma and the act of overcoming; having passed their test in life, they count as existential aristocrats. Their resilience grants them a cathartic function in relation to those — especially humans — who are still fearfully anticipating a blow. Patricia Piccinini highlights her favourite works The artist challenges us to review our preconceived ideas and socially enforced relationships with the otherwise embodied. This critical process starts by questioning the very cultural repertoire and mental habits that have structured our visual, cognitive and affective relationships with these others. Piccinini’s hybrid, monstrous creatures return our gaze, they look back at us and thus undo the consumeristic objectification of their otherness. They also look into us, with eyes full of compassion and understanding. Their intensity explodes the boundaries between human normality and its others. They stand in their plenitude, looking at our lack. Although it is tempting to take this remark as a humanisation of their gaze and their moral fibre, it would also be condescending to attribute human qualities, as if these traits were inherently superior. It is rather the case that Piccinini’s others transcend the binary divides altogether and come to exist in a continuum with a multitude of human and non-human others. In so doing, they challenge and shift boundaries. Their relational power induces a trans-species form of care, while their empathic force expresses a posthuman relational ethics. Read more on our blog / Subscribe to YouTube to watch behind-the-scenes footage and exclusive interviews / Buy the publication Patricia Piccinini, Australia b.1965 / Big Mother 2005 / Silicone, fibreglass, polyurethane, leather, human hair; ed. 2/3 + 1 AP / 175cm (high) / Gift of S Angelakis, John Ayers, Candy Bennett, Cherise Conrick, James Darling AM and Lesley Forwood, Rick Frolich, Frances Gerard, Patricia Grattan French, Stephanie Grose, Gryphon Partners Advisory, Janet Hayes, Klein Family Foundation, Edwina Lehmann, Ian Little, David and Pam McKee, Dr Peter McEvoy, Hugo and Brooke Michell, Jane Michell, Paul Taliangis, Michael and Tracey Whiting and anonymous donors through the Art Gallery of South Australia Contemporary Collectors 2010 / Collection: Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide / © The artist ‘Curious Affection’ tests all our received wisdom about nature and nurture, the real and the unreal, and what it means to be human. It explores the myriad of interactions involving humanity and the natural world, collapsing and confusing conventional boundaries. This results in extraordinary environments populated by compelling and startlingly realistic creatures. Delve into the artist’s world where the natural world pushes against the artificial, and vice versa, where the social, ethical and moral implications of genetic research are explored, and where creatures — intricately and lovingly created — visit us from a conceivable future. Professor Rosi Braidotti was born in Italy and grew up in Australia, where she received a First-Class Honours degree from the Australian National University in Canberra in 1977. She went on to receive a degree in philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris in 1981. She has taught at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands since 1988, when she was appointed as the founding professor in women’s studies. In 1995, she became the founding Director of the Netherlands research school of Women’s Studies, a position she held until 2005. She was also founding director of the Centre for the Humanities from 2007 until 2016. Braidotti is a pioneer in European women’s studies and her fields of interest include social and political theory, cultural politics, gender, feminist theory and ethnicity studies. Feature image detail: Patricia Piccinini’s Big Mother 2005 Edited extract from ‘Affirmation and a passion for difference: Looking at Piccinini looking at us’. Read the full essay in Patricia Piccinini: Curious Affection. #PiccininiGOMA
  •
    Read •

    Patricia Piccinini’s paradox: The Carrier

    Patricia Piccinini’s The Carrier 2012 is both provocative and thoughtful, the artwork hints at what is possible from the creatures we may want to create in the not-too-distant future, making us focus our attention on what may lay ahead for us — is this relationship between humanoid and human how we will care for our ageing population? The carrier himself is a muscular male, strong and powerful with bright eyes and bear traits in his nose, tail and claws, he is balding, with age spots, yet his bear-like physique is able to lift the frail woman behind him with ease. It seems the carrier and woman are connected in some way, physically but also emotionally, therein lies the conflict. Perched up high, she looks comfortable and content to rely on his assistance, yet what is their relationship, why is he carrying her, is it an equal partnership, or is he just performing a service? We can wonder if the carrier is the next step in post-human technology, his life seems perfectly engineered to the task he performs, and it is feasible that he is happily self-employed. Listen to Patricia Piccinini Know Brisbane through the QAGOMA Collection / Delve into our Queensland Stories / Read more about Australian Art / Subscribe to QAGOMA YouTube to go behind-the-scenes Known for her imaginative, yet strangely familiar, lifelike hybrid creatures, Patricia Piccinini invites us to think about our place in a world where advances in biotechnology and digital technologies are challenging the boundaries of humanity. ‘Patricia Piccinini: Curious Affection‘ / Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) / 24 March – 5 August 2018