"…both art and science require us to look closely, and carefully; and both have the potential to reveal a new understanding of our world." John O'Shea, Associate Director (Science Engagement), Culture
The thing that I found an exciting about course was the way in which artists were given equal status to scientists, researchers and other professionals.
Artists were seen as valuable for being skilled at asking questions, challenging things, seeing things from fresh perspectives, exploring and expanding upon ideas, and opening up dialogue/ conversation.
The course was broken down into the 4 C's:
In terms of anthropology, these are the skills that drive human evolution, so very important then!
During the course, the idea of learning through failure ("#failbetter") was a message that resonated with me. Productive failure, perseverance and a focus on process (all important elements of my creative practice) are seen as integral for innovation.
The course also touched upon the function of artists in research. I've been exploring this extensively with the Bethlem Gallery within an art in research peer group and through recent projects such as 'Art and Value' and the 'Mental Health and Justice' project.Within this peer group, we have been interrogating the notion of artists being used simply to visualise the work of researchers, rather than being given access to the scientific, academic and clinical space, where we could be of value posing new questions and exploring possible creative solutions.
How does this relate to our project? My work with Anna is looking at redressing the balance between clinician and patient and simultaneously, together, we are exploring the relationship between artist and researcher (a great term used within the course was "blended approach"). I hope to develop my own practice during this residency by holding this in mind throughout.
image: 'Know yourself" by Sarah
During the course we also explored the idea of audience knowledge base, and how important it is to give people an overview of any background/ historical information that they may need to know in order to make sense of what is being discussed.
The dialogue vs deficit model was explained:
Deficit: Information given one way from scientist to the public to enlighten them.
Dialogue: The public play a more active role asking questions and responding to answers in order to formulate their own understanding and opinions. The scientist remains the expert, but they share their knowledge openly.
I would suggest that currently within Clinical Health Records, the deficit model is being used; information is only being fed into the system by clinicians. If the dialogue model was in place, the patient could provide their own narrative, and are, after all, experts in their own experience.