Artist Statement Mess

To me there are two fields of limitless exploration. One is the exploration of humanity and the human condition, of which artistic expression is a direct condensate. The other is the scientific exploration of the universe, which is done through systems that boil down to the fundamental science of physics and the language of mathematics. Both are equally beautiful explorations and have similar qualities, but for many they are irrevocably divergent. One sentiment holds that artistic pursuits are hopelessly impractical. The other is that science is devoid of aesthetics, spirituality, and emotion, and therefore fails to explain or address real human experiences. I believe much of the polarization today relates to the way in which today’s most contentious issues revolve around how we interact with various forms of technology. 

This polarizationtranscends political lines and is deeply seated in the way many people approach the world. It is unclear exactly when the demarcation between art and science shifted to its current status, for example, if we look back to the era of Leonardo Da Vinci art and science existed as complementary. Now this demarcation plays out in such a manner that both the scientific community and fine art world exist in highly specialized and inaccessible bubbles. This is detrimental to society because both of these pursuits capture the essence of human exploration and can be used to understand one and other. When the dissemination of these fundamental pursuits is done under the pretext that they are divergent, concepts becomes opaque and people are isolated. This isolation gives rise to people inventing more extreme, divisive ideas as a means of understanding the world around them. And the cycle perpetuates.

My body of work intends to use scientific concepts to explore and explain art, and artistic concepts to explore and explain science. My intention is to challenge societal understandings of what art and science are with the ultimate thesis that the line drawn between these fields is immeasurably blurred and permeable. Ideally, this argument will lead to greater accessibility to both fields of study. 

My recent piece revolves around the technology of birth control. Over the past seven years I have experienced second hand, though my partner, her experience of navigating almost every mainstream form of hormonal birth control. Each posing new side effects that eventually led to the discontinuation of use of said birth control. Throughout this process I consistently researched each different contraceptive so that I could play and informed and helpful role in her decision-making process. This led me to diving deeper into the history and societal implications of birth control. 

As this body of work looks into revolutionary technologies that humanity is still struggling to exist alongside, and to build bridges between these technologies and humanity, I believe birth control is a pivotal in this conversation. The discussion around birth control today often revolves around ideas of access. This work intends to address the strain access puts on progress while also attempting to push the dialog to draw attention to the negative and under researched side effects birth control places on the body.