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.
1.1.2. Boundary Objects
Difficult social problems often require the perspectives and integration of multiple disciplines. Relational aesthetics emphasizes relationships among individuals, but it does not address how to maintain balance or promote a positive relationship. This creates an immediate conflict between aesthetics and ethics. Because an “aesthetic” does not specifically address what the qualities of the relationship are, there is potential for asymmetrical relationships in which the concerns of individuals are subordinated to those of others. One way to resolve this conflict is to borrow a concept from sociology that helps to identify ways in which symmetrical relationships can be developed. Boundary objects:
“… are those objects that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete…Such objects have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting communities…Boundary objects arise over time from durable cooperation among communities of practice.” (Bowker and Star, 1999)
Boundary objects thus mediate cooperation while maintaining heterogeneity among the participants or actors in a cooperative network. In an analysis of a natural history museum community, Star and Griesemer (1989) found four types of boundary objects:
- Repositories or ordered ‘piles’ of objects that do not require negotiation on the part of the participants in order to use the objects for their own purposes (e.g. databases, natural history collections, Legos).
- Ideal types that are abstract and vague but may be adaptable for local needs (e.g. diagrams, flags, stem cells).
- Coincident boundaries are common objects with the same boundaries but different internal contents. Thus, different perspectives can be shown along with a common referent for cooperating actors (e.g. maps, metaphors).
- Standardized forms are methods of common communication across dispersed groups. These can be transported over long distances without loosing information (e.g. jargon, species designations).
Because relationships exist among humans and non-humans, we might ask how to create or recognize objects that exist at the juncture of humans and non-humans. Do boundary objects serve the purpose of facilitating ethical relationships between humans and those we identify as “other.” To deal with this ethical question and to add yet another ordering scheme for these objects, it is worth distinguishing between objects that members of different communities can interpret, and objects designed by members of different communities. These designations need not be mutually exclusive. It is probable that objects designed by multiple communities would also be interpretable by multiple communities. The point of the designation serves only to
recognize that a single individual can design objects that still resonate with individuals in other communities.
Those involved in the design process need to be able to empathize with members from other social worlds.
Like the relational strategy, the design of boundary objects depends on second-order understanding either at the level of an individual or as a property of a group. As a group property, multiple community members may contribute second-order understanding to the design of a boundary object. This may confer a “multivalent” quality, making it possible to interpret the object across social boundaries and among different contexts. To the extent that boundary objects can be used to communicate with other communities, they serve the ethical function of promoting understanding and empathy, even if only reinforcing the idea of a shared experience. To the extent that boundary objects are made in cooperation with members of multiple communities, they serve the ethical function of making the design process participatory.
For teaching and learning, the generation of boundary objects supplies many opportunities for putting principles of good practice into action.
Because it requires negotiation on the part of the participants, making boundary objects encourages active learning and reciprocity among students.
Active learning happens when students relate the concepts and processes to their own experience (Chickering and Gamson 1987). Reciprocity is achieved when goals are formed, ideas are communicated, and the boundaries of an object are actively negotiated. Time on task is another principle of good practice (Chickering and Gamson 1987), and it supports the boundary objectmaking process. The social pressures that come from negotiation, reciprocity, and active engagement help to focus attention on the task of making along with the reception and communication needed to accomplish the task. It also holds students accountable for their roles and responsibilities to a project. If one of the prerequisites for making a boundary object is to identify and empathize with members of different social groups, then the ethical dilemma created by a relational focus is at least partially met by involving others in the process.
Consider what this might mean for the intersections of art and biology and for the relationships of humans and non-humans. Art integrates perception into the communication network of society and demonstrates the compelling social forces of order in the realm of the possible (Luhmann 2000). Making boundary objects presents an opportunity for the communication of biology and life science to open itself to perception. Negotiation among artists and biologists would amount to continuous recalibration of the discourse and practice of biology as an attempt to match socially desired futures with those being performed out of convention. One expected outcome is greater second-order understanding for biologists seeking to improve their explanatory power and gain a better understanding of how research is perceived. For the relationship between humans and non-humans, making boundary objects is an exercise in establishing concern for each other’s concerns. The most obvious benefit comes in the form of what Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock described as “a feeling for the organism” (Keller 1983). If a biologist can empathize with the organism they are studying, then they stand a better chance of making better decisions about what they are looking at and how it should be examined.
Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1999.
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.
Keller, E. F. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1983.
Luhmann, N. Art as a social system. Stanford University Press. Stanford, Calif. 2000.
Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science 19: (1989). p.387-420.
