Inspiration Outside of the Art World - Do You Mind

So my explorations are taking me on a very interesting journey so far - not one I predicted but a great one. My last blog started to on a conversation of Science vs Art or in some cases Science AND Art. An exhibition has opened in the beautiful Iron Bank which is a collaboration project between The Busy Nice and the University of Auckland Centre for Brain Research. Have a look at both - they are fantastic! The collaboration resulted in new up-and-coming NZ artists being match made with researchers at the centre, all working within the field of brain research.

I'd like to mention at this stage how fricking amazing this is for me - not just for the purpose of this blog although it is particularly convenient timing - I have many passions in life but 2 of the really vital ones are Art (History) and Neuropsychology - to the point where I am still trying to figure out which one to do my post-grad studies in! So this exhibition rocks my socks!

The Do You Mind exhibition merged these two seemingly (stereotypically) seperate and divergent individuals and their fields together with some beautiful results. The artists spent some quality time with the researchers in their labs, lab coats and all (and a nice break for said researchers, whose ambitions to be 'mad scientists' has lead them to some what solitary jobs, bordering on the anti-social.....a fair amount of people within this field are what I like to call 'weirdies') to gain a more intricate understanding of what these researchers are trying to find and achieve with their research. Now this is where I found the most beauty in the process. The work that resulted and the relationships between these seemingly different people are great things for several reasons. It brings forward the research from this centre and its ambitions to understand the human condition and its degeneration (the reason I love Neuro so much), but conveys it into a language that is not so clinical and stringent. I think the artists (for the most part - some of the pieces captured a more analytical perspective e.g. Alexander Hoyles electronic work that allows the 'viewer' to experience the 'sound of autism', based on the research methods his partner Veema Lodhia) found and convey the researchers and the research's innate drive to further an understanding of humanity and their passion to create opportunities and pathways to improve and help those that deviate or degenerate from this.

The work not only conveys the purpose of the research but also captures the persona of the researcher, particularly in the case of Estella Castle and Sarina Iwabuchi (someone whose research I have read and studied!!). Castle takes a very different approach to that of her fellow artists, this showing quite distinctly how the artists used their own personal language (and style) to tell the stories. She provides a 3/4 portrait of Iwabuchi, a gorgeous watercolour image (to my recollection.....but I am now thinking I could be remembering wrong.....must start taking notes) of the researcher 'personale'. Her portrait seeks to capture the personality of the researcher within a 'pop-culture' context, addressing (and challenging) the constructs we are exposed to of 'scientist' in particular 'female scientist' (think CSI and all the movies you have seen with scientists....geeks, crazies, recluses etc). The image is a beautiful one that personalises the researcher (her research focus is cerebral asymmetries and laterality - meaning the fact that our left hemisphere does certain things and our right does other things, for the most part).

The diversity of the stories told (and the mediums used) within the exhibition are what make it so exciting as well as the obvious, a connection (and bridge) between creative (remember that creative isn't limited to art now!) fields that through history have been dichotomised and categorised as mutually exclusive from each other (the industries and the people in them). Also it draws attention to a wonderful science that has, does and will provide so much information about how we experience the world. Provide understandings of the vast variety and diversity of that which is 'normal' and provide more understanding, information and less judgement for those that have some 'dysfunction'. It does this with a new syntax, a artistic language that breaks down the archaic seperation between the scientist and the layman.

I believe that this collaboration is important for all of these reasons and creates a positive direction and example of how collaboration (in a local, personal sense with the artists/researchers and in global, larger world impacting sense) between apparently different realms of creativity and industry can foster a better understanding of each other for everyone.

So go! The exhibition is open from now till the 7th of August, Tuesday to Sunday, 10am to 4pm in a pop up style gallery (a brilliant and contemporary concept in gallery space making this even more exciting), Suite 106, Iron Bank, K-road, Auckland NZ. Or at least visit the sites above!

The False Divide is Bridged

An article written by Julianne Schultz for the Sydney Morning Herald poses the question "Is there an Australian Culture in a Facebook world?" - the title seems a bit strange for this blog - but the article itself is about the Australian creative sector (still thinking to a degree in economic terms) and its role, influence and development within Australian culture. She makes some interesting statements that really do adapt and challenge previous concepts of 'creative'.

Such as:

"It comes as a surprise to many to be told that [creative industries] represent the same proportion of the economy as agriculture. The symbolism of this should not be underestimated. Both agriculture and the creative industries nurture and sustain; they are both sources of innovation and entrepreneurism, shaped by individual passion, shrewd corporate decisions and strategic public-sector support." This is quite a 'wholesome' point of view to take, especially in the same sentence as 'shrewd corporate decisions'.

She goes on to define what she terms as 'industries' - which for her are "ranging from the arts to media, architecture, fashion, games, film, publishing, broadcasting and design" (more limited than Richard Florida's definition)- as an industrial sector like any other. One which contributes significantly to the economy (employment and services) and also as the "face of the nation" mentioning 'fine art' examples "indigenous art at the Musee du quai Branly in Paris" as well as pop culture and news exponents such as soap operas and news, sport and drama on TV.

"In a world dominated by popular culture, the arts are increasingly significant." This is the part I liked/found the most relevant. Popular culture is driven by the creative industrial sector - the motivation and intentions vary widely of course and may be defined by the medium e.g Dane Rumble's (I shudder to use him but I was looking for a tacky NZ pop example and equate him with the likes of Justin Bieber) intentions would be vastly different from Michael Parekowhai's. But they both contribute in a cultural and economical sense to New Zealand and become part of Popular culture in some form or another or in Schultz's words are "an essential component of a contemporary nation, with tangible economic and social benefits".

The article is a good one, it introduces interesting ways to conceptualise 'creative' within terms that are concrete and applicable to the real life experience of those of us who have more and more bills to pay (damn you ACC levies). So that "In times of rapid change, the arts and creative sector are crucial to making sense of social and economic transformation".

I think this beautifully articulates a pathway and point of view in our current economic climate, and creates an avenue for all to take in a large, global sense but also provides lessons and ideas that we can all bring in to out lives and decisions.

I leave you with a quote (of a quote) from the recently deposed Kevin Rudd:

"This false divide between the arts and science, between the arts and industry, between the arts and the economy: we've actually got to put that to bed … Our ambition should be to create and to foster a creative, imaginative Australia (*insert NZ here*), because so much of the economy of the 21st century is going to require that central faculty"

Manifest Thought into Reality

Wikipedia - the font of all knowledge and information (pure and accurate) has an amazingly thorough, or at least long article on Creativity.

It starts with an overall description of the term (as the wikipedia world sees it)...

"Creativity is the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality. The process involves original thinking and then producing. The process of creation was historically reserved for deities creating "from nothing" in Creationism and other creation myths. Over time, the term creativity came to include human innovation, especially in art and science and led to the emergence of the creative class."

This seems a succinct explanation for something that to me feels more ephemeral, or harder to grasp (I mean it is wikipedia not a philosophic treatise). But it makes a good starting point for making some clear cut ideas and concepts for myself (and hopefully others who will read this one day) about what it means. And to give me some ideas and theories to relate to myself and my 'creative produce'. As an Art Historian (just) that is something I am good at I suppose - researching and waffling on about concepts. An interesting segway here is the comment about an emergence of a 'creative class'. So we investigate further (while avoiding the pages and pages of neuroscience readings on my desk)....

The creative class is a socioeconomic class that economist and social scientist Richard Florida has identified as a driving force within post-industrial cities in the States. Now this seems to be a fair stretch from where I am going with the term creative and creativity. But I think its important to look at the complexity of the term, to look at 'other options' I suppose. Florida goes on to say that this is a "class of workers whose job is to create meaningful new forms", within the article it goes on (and on!) further to talk about these jobs, and it covers a vast range of industries that I hadn't really thought of as 'creative' (with no disrespect intended - just really didn't think about the term properly I suppose) such as science, engineering, education, computer programming, research. And these are just a few. This really rips open the idea of what it is to be creative, and how being creative is used. The article and idea does include design, arts and media - but for me I already knew this. But this seems to provide a different idea as to what creativity means, it seems that it is a concept or process that is not limited to specific areas or industries/jobs (namely art farty stuff). So creativity isn't about what you do but rather how you do it. Maybe then creativity and its products are about a process of any human thought becoming a reality, using intuition and knowledge; and an expression, any expression of these that are meaningful. I guess the next question then.....what is meaningful?

The why

I've always considered myself a 'creative', more in mind and spirit than in practice. I have dabbled in several areas of 'creativity', I play guitar (self taught and hopeless), I have painted and sold some works (derivative stuff and very bitsy piecey), I took art subjects at high school (a period of time that seems to be rapidly descending in to the realms of 'distant past'), I have studied History of Art and Theory at university, I have designed and sewn some of my own clothes, remodeled vintage pieces (again, bitsy piecey).

My current passion or creative outlet is in Photography. A subject taken at High school, it is something I have picked up again in the last 18 months or so, having rediscovered my old camera (Pentax K1000, 35mm) and therefore the inclination to take photos. It should be noted that I did miserably at high school photography - I desperately hated 'artist models' and the personality of my teacher (retrospectively I was just a sh*t of a kid with an attitude - so no wonder she didn't find the 'spark of a genius' or any potential within me). But I loved what I took from the subject, capturing my environment from my point of view, learning the mechanics (although I brushed over alot of 'grudge' work that probably would have helped me now) and the developing. But then life took over, graduating, moving to university, boys and 'the grog'. This need for some creative expression was put into a tiny box in the background somewhere hidden behind a pair of corduory bell bottom pants I, for some godforsaken reason, though were stylish and several cases of cheap wine.

But now I'm older, quarter of a century and in need of something 'more' in my life, something beyond my studies and my job and even my wonderful boyfriend and friends. Something for me, to feed some selfish need I have to be 'special' and a 'creative', an 'artist'. But this want and need has led me to questions:

How exactly do I do this?

Where do I start?

What exactly are the boundaries of what is 'creative' and 'artistic'?

And how do I know when I am one.

So it starts here, I'm going to explore and digest and find what it is that makes others 'creatives' and 'artists' and see how I can do this for myself. I don't know the how yet, but I intend to jump in feet first and hope that I land in the right place and in nothing to unpleasant.