MEDITATIVE PROCESS ART
IONIST ART
MORE THOUGHTS ON SCIENCE-ART FUSION
LUKE-WARM FUSION
SCIENCE-ART FUSION SPOTLIGHT
GLOSSARY FOR AN ESSAY I DIDN'T WRITE
LAST WRITES
LAST WRITES II

Although I work in a number of different styles, most of my painting and graphic work has a pronounced sequential format. Usually with prominent introductory theme and development sections. The thematic imagery — which can be either figurative or abstract — is encapsulated within a precise structural framework. Both structure and images undergo a formalized elaborative process using developmental procedures derived from my research into the sciences, music, drama, etc. I am striving to use this fusion art form as a fluid explorative tool in both an art and philosophical context.

GERALD SHEPHERD

I coined the term IONISM during the middle seventies. As I am sure everyone has realized, the name refers to ionic bonding (electrovalency), where oppositely charged atoms, or groups of atoms (ions) are bound together by mutual attraction. Which I thought at the time was an apt metaphor for science—art fusion.

The name came to me instantly while looking at a rough piece of plywood. The combination of prominent grain and carpenters pencil lines reminding me of both Monet's "Impression, Sunrise" and a schematic diagram of chemical structures.

GERALD SHEPHERD

If one accepts the dictionary's definition of Art as human skill (regrettably anthropocentric) and an Artwork as a physical manifestation of this skill, it follows that the practice of science is an art and any evidence of scientific enquiry an art work.

Again, the dictionary defines science (with a few qualifications) as the pursuit of knowledge — an avowed aim of many artists (although They usually have even fewer qualifications), and the manipulation of this knowledge as technology. Artists are therefore without doubt technologists. A fact which makes those artists who adopt an anti-technology stance look rather silly.

Applied science is the pursuit of knowledge with an aim in sight (usually money) ditto applied arts (usually less money).

To summarise: all science is an art but not all art is a science. One is reminded of the mandatory opening to all books on cacti: all cacti are succulents but not all succulents are cacti (if one were inclined to be pedantic — as if one would — Pereskia and related genera are xerophytic but hardly succulent).

However, definitions are concentration camps for ideas, ("is That a quote" ?, dunno) and not really relevant. Depending on The criteria used, I am sure one could contrive to define science and art as rigidly, or as loosely as one liked. One could even contrive to transform one into the other —many a scientific axolotyl probably needs to metamorphose into an artistic salamander anyway.

However, does attempting to do so miss the point of science—art fusion in the first place, which is not to seek similarities between science and art but to seek differences between scientists and artists: and, once These differences are determined, to capitalise on them, getting scientists contributing to art and artists contributing to science, each bringing a fresh perspective and approach to the other discipline.

Scientists and artists do have a different perspective, partly from training, partly from inclination. OK, let's recognize This fact, let's get talking, better still, lets get working together.

In isolation one is apt to make a 'peacock's tail' of one's work (inspirations and aspirations), ill adapted to respond to the mounting pressures from without.

There are hard times ahead for both modern art and modern science. Money doesn't grow on trees even if genetically engineered pigs may fly. With apathy or antipathy from The general public — everyone is ignorant but some are more ignorant than others, ("is that a quote again" ?, dunno again)
Market forces are market forcing the more dedicated/experimental to the wall.

So the onus is on us all to try to bridge the gap, not only between artist-and scientist but between modern artist/scientist and the man in the street.

After all, this newsletter reaches parts That other scientific newsletters never reach — the waste paper bin of the Arts Council!

GERALD SHEPHERD

Professor White-Rabbit, world famous science-art fusionist, has recently brought to our attention his latest concept:
Animal Art!
He has already begun tentative experiments in this field. These include training rattlesnakes to rattle in a Samba rhythm using an electronic implant, persuading mating slugs to duplicate the last act of Swan Lake using pheromones and the creation of Michelangelo's David from bird droppings using hypnotized starlings. Early results have been encouraging - the slugs enjoyed themselves!
White-Rabbit also suggests the possibility of 'Techanimology': the use of animals to replace traditional technology. He is hoping to construct a super computer using nectar networked bee hives. He has already patented a new type of fountain pen using medicinal leeches
(fed on a mixture of blood and Indian ink) and a project for making railway signals from inebriated tree sloths shows promise.
Luke-Warm Fusion will be a regular feature exploring state of the idea' concepts. Readers are welcome to send in material.

GERALD SHEPHERD

Horticulture is a good example of practical Science-Art Fusion. Most aspects of gardening require input of some kind from both art and science. To design a garden or arrange a flower display you need not only an eye for colour and form but a basic understanding of botany. Bonsai is science in art's clothing, while plant breeding is art in science's. Many old propagation techniques and modern growing regimes have much to interest the science-orientated artist. All in all, horticulture could be seminal in the flowering of the Science-Art Fusion field and a fruitful avenue of research.
Science-Art Fusion Spotlight will be a regular feature, exploring a particular area of likely interest. Readers are invited to contribute.

GERALD SHEPHERD

AWARENESS = The recognition of sensory stimuli.

SELF-AWARENESS = The recognition of sensory stimuli in relation to a fixed reference point.

CONSCIOUSNESS = The contextual organisation of sensory stimuli (awareness plus language).

INTELLIGENCE = The ability to manipulate suspended responses (information) to sensory stimuli.

IDENTITY = Consciousness plus intelligence.

THE WILL = Nothing.

'PHYSICAL CONSCIOUSNESS'
The energy of a mind system. The law of entropy applies. The human egg has potential consciousness.

'SUPERCONSCIOUSNESS'
A way of increasing the acquisition of knowledge and the means of conceptualizing by artificial methods. A plateau is reached where the language of thought evolves but the brains s mind doesn't. Information is contained and examined outside of the mind's body until a new brain is created which can encompass the extra information and sensation. A distinction is made between the accumulation of information and the 'mind' systems which contain or utilize this information. In this context, the degree or type of consciousness is determined solely by the type of language involved. The 'thinker' is controlled by thought.

'PARACONSCIOUSNESS'
Emotions and feelings etc. introduced (into the universe) by living systems but made manifest by art and culture.

GERALD SHEPHERD

How would modern art appear isolated from its social and artistic context? Minus its history?

Imagine a Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy type scenario: a many-eyed, multi-limbed and mega-minded property developer descends on the Earth and decides to turn the planet into an interstellar hot dog stand (ignore the fact that mankind is trying its best to do something similar) unless we can show him! her/it one example of supreme creativity produced during the present century. What would we show Him/Her/It? An example of modern art? A Mondrian perhaps —four vertical lines, three horizontal lines and two coloured squares! Or a Rothko? — two maroon. blobs on one red background! Or a Kandinsky? — based on intersecting straight lines! Or a Klee? — based on intersecting sqiggly lines! Or      Not if the future of the human race depended on it please! Not before I am rich and famous (always next week!) anyway.

Continuing with science fiction (I hope!) scenarios: what if everyone suddenly woke up with three eyes (some of us with six!). Artistic appreciation is a product of our senses — actually every kind of thought and perception is a product of our senses! So all that would be left of our High Art would be spent nuclei of content!

Art for Art's sake is one of the basic tenets of modern art — probably the basic tenet; possibly the only tenet!. A concept right in its time but I suggest wrong now. Obviously it was a reaction to the static storyboard art of the academies. However, story telling, static or otherwise (cinema), is not necessarily bad in art, although perhaps the type of story or the way it is told may be. All art needs a potential for interreferentiality (I'm not sure if the word interreferentiality has a potential for interreferentiality
— phew! — but I cannot think of a better at the moment). Not in a purely social context but in relation to other disciplines that share art' s main objective of assimilating and accessing information from the world about us. Perhaps the only criterion for evaluating the worth of a work of art is quantity and quality of the information it contains. This is true of my own art at least.

Imagine that the whole of humanity suddenly got a collective artistic amnesia (99% probably already has!), and could not remember any of the art produced after the time of the renaissance giants such as Michelangelo and Leonardo. Humanity does maintain the present level of scientific and cultural sophistication however. How would modern art form and evolve in this context? Would it form at all?

In the first decades of this century modern 'art' and 'modern' science were in many respects neck and neck in the endeavour to comprehend the universe. Modern art's progress appeared to peter out in the seventies and actually start to move backwards in the eighties. Science on the other hand continued to proceed ever onwards. The reason I suspect, is simple: science has an inherent mechanism to negate the limitations imposed by mankind's physical and emotional makeup.

I see (pretentiously no doubt) Ionist Art and Process Art as the means of negating human limitations in an artistic context. A way of extending art beyond the artist and a way of circumventing the genetic and cultural straight-jacket we find ourselves in.

GERALD SHEPHERD

Towards a definitive definition of Science-Art Fusion!

Science—Art Fusion is a device for broadening one's perceptual responses to ones s environment. Environment equals everything outside of the Self. For example. When one looks at a flower (as an artist), one sees it in terms of colour and form. But what about the flower's function, chemistry, mechanical structure and evolutionary history? All these are the concerns of the scientist, but knowledge of them would enhance an individual's appreciation of the flower — or any other object!

Ionism is a device for widening the presentation of one's perceptions of one' s environment.

Ionism increases the range of methods and materials with which an artist can make relevant statements about the world.
 

GERALD SHEPHERD