by Ralph Hoyte
Just wondering about 'science' and 'art'. 'Science' is, it seems, subject to a rigorous set of rules about what is allowed and what is not. Emma and Catriona, when asked questions at the workshop, started nearly every sentence with, " The results/figures indicate ...' or ; 'That could be the case, but...'; or, 'some authors hypothesize that ...'; or ' we don't have the evidence for that', or, 'we cannot state that on the basis of what we found...'
This IS the case, or 'They came from XYZ', or 'They DID this, that or the other were resoundingly absent. Certainty doesn't exist, and reasoned hypotheses only last as long as your last measurement, it seems, and these then hover around in a sort of limbo 'waiting on' someone else's postulate, methodology, or on consensus ... which itself only lasts as long as scientific fashion dictates or until other opinions/results have gathered enough momentum to over-paint it with another colour. Black is the new black?
History is a narrative we tell ourselves, or one we are told. Archaeology is an art, not a science. Who's funding this gig? The AHRC - the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Ergo - archaeology is an art, or at least a humanity. QED. It tries to build up authenticated narratives about past people, events and objects. Narratives. But it can only tell us, 'our results indicate ...' Otherwise they get thrown out of the 'archaeology' fold and into the layabout artist fold.
'Layabout artist' ... what does 'an artist' or 'a writer', or 'a poet' do other than 'lay about'? I - and I can speak only for myself - think that 'listening' is the primary occupation and methodology of the poet/writer. I listen to what wants to be said, then I write it down (of necessity, as filtered through myself and my own life experiences). So it is, in a kind of way, a branch of Shamanism. You try and get as little as possible in the way of 'what wants to be said'. So artists, writers - we create/write what is true. Absolute truth. Which makes rather a nonsense of the distinction between 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'. Fiction may not be real ... but it's true.
'Art' is a science - in that it has its own rigour. It has to be true.
For this project, LitArch, literary archaeology. It appears that archaeologists are allowed to do the 'science' bit (in spite of being Humanists, actually), but not the arts bit (some archaeologists are more arty than others, of course, and get to make reproductions of, eg bronze age stone axes, chop down trees with them and built roundhuts to cavort in). Which is, hopefully, where we, the writers, come in. We are allowed to do the arts bit... but not the science bit. But this has to be based in as much truth as can be known about what the archaeologists are doing - and reference to as much truth as archaeology can deliver. So - direct reference to research, research results, research methodologies, charts, diagrams, graphs, measurements. Throw them all in, stir, see what comes out.
This IS the case, or 'They came from XYZ', or 'They DID this, that or the other were resoundingly absent. Certainty doesn't exist, and reasoned hypotheses only last as long as your last measurement, it seems, and these then hover around in a sort of limbo 'waiting on' someone else's postulate, methodology, or on consensus ... which itself only lasts as long as scientific fashion dictates or until other opinions/results have gathered enough momentum to over-paint it with another colour. Black is the new black?
History is a narrative we tell ourselves, or one we are told. Archaeology is an art, not a science. Who's funding this gig? The AHRC - the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Ergo - archaeology is an art, or at least a humanity. QED. It tries to build up authenticated narratives about past people, events and objects. Narratives. But it can only tell us, 'our results indicate ...' Otherwise they get thrown out of the 'archaeology' fold and into the layabout artist fold.
'Layabout artist' ... what does 'an artist' or 'a writer', or 'a poet' do other than 'lay about'? I - and I can speak only for myself - think that 'listening' is the primary occupation and methodology of the poet/writer. I listen to what wants to be said, then I write it down (of necessity, as filtered through myself and my own life experiences). So it is, in a kind of way, a branch of Shamanism. You try and get as little as possible in the way of 'what wants to be said'. So artists, writers - we create/write what is true. Absolute truth. Which makes rather a nonsense of the distinction between 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'. Fiction may not be real ... but it's true.
'Art' is a science - in that it has its own rigour. It has to be true.
For this project, LitArch, literary archaeology. It appears that archaeologists are allowed to do the 'science' bit (in spite of being Humanists, actually), but not the arts bit (some archaeologists are more arty than others, of course, and get to make reproductions of, eg bronze age stone axes, chop down trees with them and built roundhuts to cavort in). Which is, hopefully, where we, the writers, come in. We are allowed to do the arts bit... but not the science bit. But this has to be based in as much truth as can be known about what the archaeologists are doing - and reference to as much truth as archaeology can deliver. So - direct reference to research, research results, research methodologies, charts, diagrams, graphs, measurements. Throw them all in, stir, see what comes out.
http://lit-arch.blogspot.co.uk/