My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.1. Relational Aesthetics
One way to resolve the inconsistencies and differences among individuals is to emphasize the relationships among individuals. Relationships effectively emphasize the nature of interactions and are the product of more than one individual. This suggests a relational aesthetic, which takes into account the range and quality of human relationships and their social context (Bourriaud, 2002). Relational aesthetics relies on a definition of aesthetics as “an idea that sets humankind apart from other animal species.” Though human aesthetics are very different from those of other species, it is only the idea that they are different which sets humans apart from others. A definition of relational aesthetics can be expanded to include the range and quality of human and non-human relationships as variables.
Instead of setting humans apart from others we can now take into account the numerous interactions and relationships that occur between and among humans and non-humans.
If we refer back to the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration, we are reminded to ask, “How do we create common ground and promote just relationships for each of these interactions?”
George Gessert’s work with hybrids of the Iris genus are a good example of relational aesthetics in action. Gessert cultivates iris strains as art. The cultivation and culling of Iris plants strengthens the relationship between Gessert’s own aesthetic preferences and the hybrid phenotypes or outward appearance (Gessert 1993). This is a form of artificial selection that has been used for centuries to domesticate and select organisms for human purposes–in Gessert’s case, the purposes are aesthetic. The thing to remember about Gessert’s relationship with the iris hybrids is that the relationship is, in many ways, the artwork. Rather than promoting an agonistic interaction by simply picking and displaying the flowers, Gessert refers to himself as a “facilitator” which demonstrates that his role is a cooperative one. Raising hybrid Irises is a collaborative artwork involving selective decisions from the artist and developmental decisions the organism. Gessert directly affects floral morphology through cultivation. This raises issues about how human-mediated selection and so-called natural forms of selection might affect plant-pollinator interactions. Correspondingly, other relationships that the plant has (e.g. microbes and fungi in the soil) may implicate other responsive stakeholders.
Examples of human and non-human interactions that promote cooperative relationships are not restricted to the art world. The poultry industry, pressured by the demand for eggs, raises hens in crowded cages to increase industrial efficiency. This crowding increases competitive interactions, mortality, and decreased egg production among the chickens and led to beak trimming as a controversial method of reducing injury. Researchers decided that a better way to decrease mortality and increase egg laying could be accomplished by selecting cages rather than individuals (Muir 1996). In this manner, the relationships among the individuals in the cages were important to the well-being of each individual. Cages with fewer agnostic interactions also demonstrated higher egg-laying productivity. Again, the point of this example is to demonstrate how relationships themselves can be a positive area of interest and lead to a more synergistic response.
Framing the relationship between individuals rather than specific qualities of individuals ensures that individual attributes are maintained in a relationship system, despite whatever value judgments are made. This system might include humans, non-humans, or a mix of both. Mark Thompson creates art installations that allow him to share a space with bees. In Thompson’s words, these serve as “models of interaction” while simultaneously creating pollination opportunities outside of the exhibition space (Gessert 1993).
Another area in which attention to relationships is important is in the practice of good pedagogy in teaching and learning. Attention to the strength of interactions fosters second-order understanding. Second-order understanding is the understanding that results from recognizing another individual’s understanding (Krippendorf 2006).
Strong interactions among individuals often promotes the establishment of empathy, a form of second-order understanding.
This can result in better design for educational objectives and creative research that springs from strong design. Chickering and Gamson outline seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (1987) that have a relational component. Contact between students and faculty, reciprocity and cooperation among students, and prompt feedback, clearly suggest a relational strategy. Though less explicitly connected, feedback is a very important relational device for communication and for assessing the quality and range of interactions. Feedback reinforces second-order understanding.
My point in outlining these variables is to demonstrate that relationships (intense/relaxed; local/global; friendly/apathetic, for example) can be attended to, and as all relationships need more than one individual, there may be better opportunities to find common ground between differences. Attention to relationships can happen through working arrangements in the classroom, lab, or studio. In this approach, the comparison is about those patterns that connect these different levels of organization–biological or otherwise. This also does not presuppose which relationships are better or have more value than others. In Gessert’s work, an argument can be made that the iris benefits from increased cultivation. Gessert benefits from the pleasure they provide.
My intention is only to reframe the boundary of the system to take more perspectives into account. Those that are less frequently incorporated (e.g. non-humans) may gain an increased stake in discussions under this model. Consequently,decision-making that implements a relational set of values would first ask about the kinds of relationships created and what qualities and/or ranges those relationship exhibit.
Bourriaud, N. Relational Aesthetics. Trans. Pleasance, S. & F. Woods. Les Presses du Reel. 2002.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. (1987). p.3-7.
Gessert, G. “Notes on Genetic Art,” Leonardo Vol 26, No. 3 (1993).
Krippendorf, K. The Semantic Turn: a new foundation for design. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2006.
Muir, W. M. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75: (1996). p.447-458.
