One might go as far as to say that, from our point of view, culture cannot exist without the senses, and neither can we.
The story of research communication could begin with scientists like Michael Faraday who realised that if their cutting edge research was to reach its potential and change the world it had to be seen.
The ‘cultural landscape’ looks to describe the landscape we live in. It would include all spaces and ‘things’ in society, public and private, that form the cultural experiences of everyday life.
In this context a ‘tool’ is the specific vehicle employed to carry an idea to an audience. Although my attention is predominantly focused on the art world, visual culture, manufacturing and knowledge economies, a tool can be anything and come from anywhere.
There was something about recreating an observation on your own terms that seemed so new and innovative to me, but sat so conformably in the canon of art history, of memory, of perception, of how we want things to be.
The prominent culture of research output is text, it exclusively takes the form of journal articles, essays and books. This doesn’t create favourable conditions for contemporary society to see, understand, engage or contribute to it.
To formalise this idea, I distilled de Botton’s sentence into something visual, an artwork as a symbol. With the regal portrait prevalent in 17th century european art I decided to re-appropriate an etching of La Rochefoucauld, adding the blue bird (representing the Twitter logo) and the hand upon which it perches.
Edward Bernays (Lucian Freud’s nephew) quickly realised that “what could be done for a nation at war could be done for organizations and people in a nation at peace” …and duly opened a ‘public relations’ business in New York.
In an academic, art or curatorial context it’s more helpful to think of ‘accessibility’ as providing a re-framing, entry point or window to the original work so that the viewer stands a chance of understanding it in a short space of time.