For Creative Clusters, this is the key question. If the answer wasn’t yes, I wouldn’t be here.
I should say, at the outset, that wealth generation was never in our minds when
we came up with the idea of Sci-Art. As I’ve mentioned, this event occurred over 10 years ago. The group of scientists, artists and generalists who, together, during
the course of one year, hammered out the terms of reference for launching the Sci-Art competition were concerned to achieve, above all else, a meeting of minds between artists and scientists. Submitted ideas must be able to demonstrate that the artists
and scientists concerned had worked as a true partnership with each penetrating
and engaging with the territory of the other – a criterion that remained intact throughout the 10 years of Sci-Art’s life, although during this period of time the initiative did move through a series of administrative changes.
In all four stories I’ve narrated, a Sci-Art Award kick-started partnerships into action.
Often, this initial funding enabled projects to gather further funding from other sources once early progress began to show tangible results. But, in the case of John Tchalenko’s project, PAINTERS EYE MOVEMENT, which he regarded as only a feasibility study, it was a further Sci-Art Award that enabled him to move the project forward into a closer examination of ‘Eye Control’.
This second stage united the skill of drawing with other fine-controlled skills – in particular, surgery. How did this come about?
One principal finding from the eye-tracker study of portrait painter Humphrey Ocean at work was that his eye movements while drawing were different from his normal eye movements