Lee Patrick [Johnson]

As usual I was neurotically fabricating ceramic pieces in my studio the other night.    I was pondering about psychology, psychiatry, the arts, and the ‘hard sciences’ when I began thinking about the divide between the arts and sciences.  What about art and science do not correlate?  In what ways does psychology apply more to art than the “hard sciences”?  I perceive psychology/psychiatry as a possible bridge between the arts and sciences since, as a conceptual entity, it is focused on both a level of biology/physiology/neurobiology [quantitative data] as well as extemporaneous factors such as creativity, experiential events, and environmental factors [Qualitative yet currently with many unquantifiable variables].   I am interested the viewer’s physiologic response [which could be attained through thermal scanning], their psychological/sociological response [which could be collected through questionnaires, interviews, or recorded reaction] and the physicality of the art piece itself.    What type[s] of psychology/psychiatry would be a good place to start focusing on?  Cognitive Behavioral theory [1]/ DSM-related areas (Axis I, II, III, VI)[2]/ Sociology [3]?   Can (has) art been studied as a means to progress the internalization [4] of a set of beliefs?  The first example I think about is the historical use of art to scare the fear of God into the populace [the Byzantine empire for example, or Hitler, you choose!].  Just because we perceive the correlation between these concepts does not mean we have any grasp on the power it can hold on an individual or populace.  Could there be a way through medium, media, medications, setting, ambiance, scale, publicity, figure head writing or any other aspect of arts to speed up a set “agenda” of internalization or things that could be quantified about the process?  [This plays into a plethora of ideas regarding art as an educational tool and its possible functions within society... for example "public art"] Are there connections between art perception and neural imaging?   Is there simultaneously a physiologic correlation [increased bp, temp, hr, rr, blood levels] to the art-related internalization process?  If such physiologic response does exist, does a higher physiologic response to art related to the speed/amount/depth of the internalization?  What beliefs/morals/ethics/perceptions could be studied?  [What do I find interesting? – A social comprehension of mental disorder, homophobia, religion/spirituality?-  A personal investment and interest in the topic is key for internal motivation]

Can psychiatric disorder or other psychological dilemma be deduced through art?  Is there a correlation between poor mental health, a physiologic response to artwork, and personal response to art work?  Does a viewer’s interest or indifferent response to  “controversial artwork” correlate to an altered level of mental health [less or more problems with mental health if any]?  Does a viewer’s angry/agitated response to controversial artwork correlate to an altered level of mental health[less or more problems with mental health if any]?  I guess I am weaving the correlation between a viewer’s misconception or reactionary offense to artwork being tied to the possibility of underlying psychological issues.  Does the [possible] physiologic response correlate to the expected responses [does a photograph of a dead baby in a blender cause the heart rate of the viewer to increase as one may predict every time, why the discrepancies- if any]?  What kind of personality traits cause any given viewer like (or dislike) different kinds of artwork?

So where does my artwork come into play and how should my artwork be fabricated to begin to answer these particular conceptual questions?  Well, like most research tools, I feel the hypothesis of the study will dictate the design of the objects needed for the study.  In turn, the results of the study will influence the design of the artwork.  Since I am not at the point where I have a concise hypothesis or study I am working in the studio in a fashion dictated by the human body/mind [which is what I intend to study];  The body is a interconnected system of cellular processes which together function as a singular entity.  I am constructing pieces/objects to be used in combination or alone to fill the function of this project, another ideas, or any other function fitting into my artist progression.  What if I made a sequence of elements which once bisqued could combined and re-fired [or not] to be functional , sculptural, public art pieces, singular entities, or contain the aesthetics/properties necessary for the gradual alteration/progression required for consecutive research studies?  An evolutionary ceramic entity?  I see a direction, but is generalization the key?  Should I focus more on the specificity and singular function of the objects?  As in evolution, it is typically the specialization of a species which differentiates it from the similar-generalized species that will allow its survival when there is a change in environment/situation.  Muddled, I know, but the idea remains.  So this is my first entry.  I needed to just eliminate a bunch of ideas in order to focus on a direction.