Questioning art and social science crossovers

The word “question” implies focusing only on coming up with an answer. I prefer the term “problem”. A problem does not exist beyond its solutions, to quote Deleuze. In other words, a problem for which there is no solution is a badly formulated problem, implying that we focus on the development of problems rather than their resolution. On a practical level, this approach requires careful work that is inextricably linked to creation/inquiry, which itself has consequences for our understanding of reality and, more notably, our ability to act on the present. In my opinion, it is here that we see the urgency of working together. Be it in the arts or the social sciences, we must conceive and create the possible; in other words, use the imagination, which is informed by a detailed approach to reality, and not the imaginary world, which does not take into account any historical, social or economic considerations, etc. For Dingdingdong – the co-production institute for knowledge about Huntington's disease – we created a series of video clips drawing, for example, on the skills of storyteller Olivier Marboeuf, video artist Fabrizio Terranova and neurologist Katia Youssov. We combined this with the knowledge contributed by sufferers of the disease and researchers from the collective. It is fiction rooted in reality. Thus, it lifts this reality and disrupts it a bit. The series features a doctor who gradually transforms a terrible diagnosis – an incurable illness – into a situation that builds on the possible, where anything is feasible. We’re so convinced of the beneficial effects of this series that we’re experimenting with broadcasting it more widely.

In my experience, these approaches cannot be described in the abstract. One can no longer think of the arts and social sciences as being outside of the situations to which they respond. All knowledge-building and/or creativity is motivated by a vital need. It is this necessity - which is unique to every situation - that should dictate the way in which it is handled. The difficulty is often in how we formulate this need, beyond the obvious and what connects us to it, whether through our “professional” and/or “personal” practices. Given the various aspects that must considered – meetings, arrangements, connections, issues, wishes, etc. – collaborations between artists and researchers can take many forms provided that they start from situations themselves, which must be stated in problem form and whose consequences we pay special attention to. We talk a lot about the crossover between arts and social sciences because we have a long history of compartmentalizing fields of thought and creativity, a separation that today is rightly challenged, I’m sure. However, I don’t believe we should systematically impose a “multi-inter-trans” approach either, which would be just as dangerous. Again, each situation should be afforded the power to disrupt our traditional patterns of thought. "Any object of knowledge is an active entity with which it is necessary to create connections" (Benedikte Zitouni on the “situated knowledges” of Donna Haraway). Rather than multi-inter-trans-, it is about rethinking our disciplines in terms of related or connected areas of knowledge. The main requirement is ensuring that these alliances are relevant and that they can intervene in reality in a transformative way.

Mobility is a huge subject, but it also has the advantage of raising the thorny issue of the link between the local and the global. How can policies be formed from individual experiences? There is no one answer, obviously, but despite that I still want and need to consider the possible. The question is not whether art can generate change, but to know how it can be involved, because it cannot do much on its own. This question of “how to do it” is always brought up and reinvented according to the circumstances in which the artists decide to work with people other than themselves. Is it not, above all, about changing our way of thinking about politics and, according to Dewey, working on rebuilding actual communities – problems, communities – which fundamentally is about defining our interests and then politicizing them, rather than controlling governments? Politicizing involves being able to share one’s commitments and interests, always localized and individual, and the ability to create consent, a rather heavy word but necessary, it seems to me. Being concerned is not the same as being directly affected – by an illness, a law, an economic measure, etc. Being concerned is being put to work and changing one’s perception of an experience in the world so deeply that it commits one to “taking part”. Thanks to their highly evolved knowledge and skills, the arts and social sciences are undoubtedly best suited to bringing all their power to bear on situations and the people in them, by developing potential new material for today’s world. They just have to accept that their ways of thinking and working may be overturned, and that they themselves will become involved in the changes that ensue. They need to see the positive side, and not only what they stand to lose.