3
Something captures my attention : a current event , a headline , a news story , a podcast , an article , even a single sentence . Often , it concerns a disease that has been , is or could become a pandemic .
My creative process has a strong correlation to the scientific method . I observe carefully . I ’ m open to new information and ideas , and I am willing to submit my findings to scrutiny . While I don ’ t typically construct and test my own hypotheses , I do make use of others ’. But while I practice scientific methodologies in my creative process , applying a protocol of purpose , methods , controls and data interpretation , I also depart from this community ’ s unyielding codes . While the purpose of science is to avoid making faulty assumptions and false claims , my process encourages responsiveness and considers and applies historical memory and even folklore .
The scientific method involves continually checking hypotheses to make sure they are supported by the evidence . If the evidence doesn ’ t support the hypothesis , the scientist changes or discards it . I retain every last piece of information in its full and flawed glory , whether factual or not . The old hypothesis and the new hypothesis remain . This is where the reporter / detective in me is activated ; I retain all evidence , no matter where it leads . Nothing is supressed .
I preserve the inaccurate precisely because it is flawed . Retaining this information as a part of my study does two things . It sustains the diversity of research and , more important , it reflects how easily information , data and stories can become distorted . The simple act of leaving in or taking out a single , possibly irrelevant fact changes the whole outcome . The misrepresentations whose origins lie in a slight change are the most compelling to me . Over time , each version becomes slightly more twisted , like the tales of big fish , further warping the work ’ s origins and coloring historical memory .