Archive for thesis
June 8, 2007 at 8:32 am · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning, thesis
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.
1.1.3. Network Entrepreneurship
A third heuristic is the concept of network entrepreneurship. A network entrepreneur is someone who brokers ideas across structural holes in organization and networks (Burt 2003). Burt defines structural holes as areas of emptiness or gaps between social groups. The epistemological and methodological gap between the arts and sciences is a good example. According to Burt, individuals (and possibly groups) that provide vision advantages through network entrepreneurship can be thought of and related to as social capital. The work that these types of individuals do is based on the assumption that within group variation and the diversity of ideas is less than the variation and range of possible solutions achievable between groups.
Network entrepreneurs are positioned (or position themselves) to draw from these different sources of variation while seeking strategic design solutions.
If an individual in involved in designing a boundary object, the degree to which they engage in network entrepreneurship may increase the suitability of that object across different communities. Burt (2003) recognizes four behaviors of network entrepreneurs who engage in information arbitrage:
- Making individuals in one or both groups aware of the interests and difficulties of the other(s), and in the process, mitigate misunderstandings and confusion.
- Transferring practices that have the potential to create value from one group in another group.
- Drawing analogies between things that are seemingly irrelevant to one another.
- Synthesizing new behaviors and beliefs that combine the concerns of multiple groups.
One thing to recognize is how similar the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration (see Wolfe and Haynes 2003) are with these brokering behaviors. It seems reasonable to consider the processes of network entrepreneurship in the context of strategies for realizing high quality interdisciplinary creative work.
Examples of network entrepreneurship abound and there are varying degrees of the behavior. Someone directly involved in cinema production may reasonably be called a network entrepreneur. Cinema, by virtue of its techniques and conventions, is a collaborative medium and dependent on the actions of individuals to create a relational aesthetic that facilitates production. Recognizing the corresponding needs of the lighting crew and the camera operators is a function of the director of photography. The motion picture is a sort of boundary object, representing the work and input from a variety of individuals, groups, and organizations. In an industrial setting, producers balance the concerns of directors and distributors. On the side of the spectator, cinema appeals to multiple audiences and provides an exceptional level of empathy for the viewer to attach oneself (Koss 2006).
For Soviet filmmaker Sergi Eisenstein, calling attention to the similarity between developing cells in a biological context was akin to his new formalist approach to film editing (Eisenstein 1949). This was a form of network entrepreneurship that facilitated communication and boundary crossing using an analogy.
For students, network entrepreneurship can take the form of an idealized set of behaviors that can facilitate the formation of new ideas.
As a principle of good practice, encouraging network entrepreneurship can communicate high expectations and promote respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
High expectations are reinforced when standards in one group can be related to standards in another. The high currency placed on writing in the sciences, for example, may carry over into the arts if they are networked. Likewise, the emphatic respect for diversity in the arts may also carry into the sciences as multiple perspectives contribute to new
ideas.
If the goal is to build bridges between art and biology, network entrepreneurs are a key to unlocking new opportunities. By actively promoting connections and translating across these social boundaries, network entrepreneurs establish relationships and build cohesion within and between individuals.
Burt, R. S. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology. 110: (2004). p.349–399.
Eisenstein, S, The Cinematic Principle and the Ideogram in Film Form. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1949.
Koss, J. On the Limits of Empathy. The Art Bulletin. 88: (2006). p.139-57.
Wolfe, C. R., and Haynes, C. Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies 21: (2003). 126–169.
June 8, 2007 at 7:50 am · Filed under Design, boundary objects, interdisciplinary, teaching and learning, thesis
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.
June 8, 2007 at 7:17 am · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, relational aesthetics, teaching and learning, thesis
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.
March 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm · Filed under maps, thesis
March 26, 2007 at 4:13 pm · Filed under boundary objects, evolution, host-parasite, interdisciplinary, making it public, relational aesthetics, sculpture, teaching and learning, thesis
The exhibition of Sui generis continues this week in the Windows Room (3rd floor) at Palmer Commons (hours: 7:30 am-11pm Mon-Sat). The exhibition is open to the public now through April 13th, 2007.
A reception will be held on Friday, March 30th from 5-6:30 p.m. at the above location. Gabriel Harp will be on hand to discuss the work.
A presentation entitled, “Network Entrepreneurship in Biology, Art, & Design” will take place on April 2nd, 2007 from 5-6:30 p.m. in the Art & Architecture Auditorium.
About the work:
Sui generis is a large-scale tectonic, systems-based installation designed to take into account related conceptual attributes of a chapel, scientific laboratory, carnival, and children’s nursery. Sui generis offers a cognitive retreat, a place for reflection, and a chance to come into close physical proximity with other organisms and ourselves. A rules-based activity based on the concept of asexual reproduction continues through the duration of the exhibition. A selection from Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking Glass often used to explain and ideate contemporary theories about the evolution of sex and recombination accompanies the artwork.
In order to experience the installation, visitors will be invited to raise their heads through one of the two holes in the floor underneath. When inhabiting the interior, the two viewers will be confronted not only with the shadowscape, but also with each other. As the architecture is elusive in its source, it invites diverse interpretations–a carnival sideshow, a Zen garden, a Victorian greenhouse, a virus, or perhaps even a flower awaiting pollination.
The title Sui generis indicates an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept. In intellectual property law, exclusive rights are granted for the creation and development of plant breeds, databases and traditional knowledge (among others) to reflect that the subject matter is a product of the intellect.
For more background, explore a database of terms and concepts associated with the design of Sui generis as well as documentation of the construction process.
About the Artist:
In his work, Gabriel Harp recombines visual art and life science (epistemology) through the processes of critical design and network entrepreneurship. Often working at the interfaces of evolutionary biology, bioinformatics, education, and visual culture, his work investigates the roles of metaphors in education, science and policy and the primacy of visual signals in the discourse surrounding genomics and biotechnology. Collaborating with Zack Denfeld and others, Gabriel is currently developing a visual map of patent claims on the human genome.
March 23, 2007 at 10:24 am · Filed under Design, making it public, teaching and learning, thesis
Gabriel Harp’s thesis defense* entitled, “Network Entrepreneurship in Biology, Art, & Design” will take place on April 2nd, 2007 from 5-6:30 p.m. in the Art & Architecture Auditorium.
The talk will address:
-the assessment of interdisciplinary creative work
-common denominators for working across boundaries in biology, art and design
-systems art
-my creative work as a response to and example of these parameters
*I should note that with the MFA program there is an effort to semantically differentiate “thesis defense” from “thesis presentation”. I understand it as a response to the “defensive” position that the term may place students in as having to back up their work is somewhat of a “scientific” context. While I largely agree with the sentiment, I maintain the term “defense” as a way to signal my own desire to be challenged within the Art & Design academic context. Without such challenges and my own responses to those challenges, I find it difficult to assess and integrate the value of the work I’ve done with other perspectives and processes.
March 17, 2007 at 9:51 am · Filed under boundary objects, making it public, sculpture, thesis
click the above image for a quicktime timelapse movie of the installation process…
Information about the exhibition here…
Opening night…
March 14, 2007 at 9:28 am · Filed under making it public, sculpture, sketches, thesis
each image opens as a quicktime movie in your browser
March 12, 2007 at 7:38 am · Filed under Design, art, biology, boundary objects, relational aesthetics, thesis
Installation of Sui generis begins this week in the Windows Room (3rd floor) at Palmer Commons (hours: 7:30 am-11pm Mon-Sat). The exhibition is open now through April 13th, 2007.
Sui generis is a large-scale tectonic, systems-based installation designed to take into account related conceptual attributes of a chapel, scientific laboratory, carnival, and children’s nursery. Sui generis offers a cognitive retreat, a place for reflection, and a chance to come into close physical proximity with other organisms and ourselves. The installation will develop to encompass different attributes and further articulation over the duration of the exhibition.
In order to experience the installation, visitors will be invited to raise their heads through one of the two holes in the floor underneath. When inhabiting the interior, the two viewers will be confronted not only with the shadowscape, but also with each other. As the architecture is elusive in its source, it invites diverse interpretations–a carnival sideshow, a Zen garden, a Victorian greenhouse, a virus, or perhaps even a flower awaiting pollination.
The title Sui generis indicates an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept. In intellectual property law, exclusive rights are granted for the creation and development of plant breeds, databases and traditional knowledge (among others) to reflect that the subject matter is a product of the intellect.
For more background, explore a database of terms and concepts associated with the design of Sui generis as well as documentation of the construction process.
In his work, Gabriel Harp recombines visual art and life science (epistemology) through the processes of critical design and network entrepreneurship. Often working at the interfaces of evolutionary biology, bioinformatics, education, and visual culture, his work investigates the roles of metaphors in education, science and policy and the primacy of visual signals in the discourse surrounding genomics and biotechnology. Collaborating with Zack Denfeld and others, Gabriel is currently developing a visual map of patent claims on the human genome.
Next entries »
1.1.3. Network Entrepreneurship
