The Watching and Dreaming body of work links AI with the apparent irrationality of dreams. The work is located at a paradoxical intersection of knowledge creation; the emphasis on formalism in computer science, the reductionism and empiricism in cognitive neuroscience, and the open-endedness and fluidity of artistic practice cannot be resolved as merely multidisciplinary.
I frame my doctoral work (Bogart 2014b), in which dreaming machines were initially developed, as art-as-research (Busch 2009) where I center the knowledge-generating capacity of artistic practices, make use of specialized knowledge, and consider argument the central pillar of all research. My aim is not merely to make use of knowledge in cognitive neuroscience, but to contribute through the generative capacity of artistic practice. This goal has not been satisfied, as validating a theory developed through art-as-research is challenging; for the Integrative Theory to be validated in cognitive neuroscience, empirical validation and quantitative analysis are required. Adhering to these disciplinary norms would elevate their primacy; I would be conducting science, not art-as-research. The richness and breadth of the computational model make it unamenable to reductionism and empirical validation. It is unclear what aspects of dreaming should be validated; waking/dreaming dynamics? Integration of waking "experience" in dreaming? Realism or causality in dreams? While this work has been worthy of citation by specialists, e.g. Davies (2019), it is not publishable in the disciplinary literature because of its lack of adherence to disciplinary methods. When publishing in interdisciplinary contexts, such as this one, the depth of my engagement with the cognitive neuroscience literature and its support of my argument are not easily communicated for a non-specialist audience. The work remains in limbo, unpublished in disciplinary contexts and merely summarized in interdisciplinary journals.
Artistic practice—with its interdisciplinarity, emphasis on richness and complexity, and lack of prescription of methods and outcomes—is the backbone for art-as-research. My doctoral work has led to peer-reviewed publications (Bogart and Pasquier 2011; Bogart and Pasquier 2013a; Bogart, Pasquier, and Barnes 2013; Bogart 2017a; Bogart 2017b) and peer-reviewed exhibitions (Bogart 2012; Bogart and Pasquier 2013b; Bogart 2014a), as well as talks and an ongoing body of work. Each of these outcomes have different audiences and different degrees of viewer engagement. No single outcome is a primary site for audience engagement with the knowledge produced through this art-as-research.
The very notion of validation in research requires the deployment of well-entrenched methods situated in stable disciplines. Projects such as this push boundaries without subscribing to the supremacy of methods of one domain over another. Validation according to the methods of all constituent disciplines may be unattainable. This project begs deep questions for interdisciplinary and arts-integrative research, such as: How can a radical inter- or a- disciplinary art-as-research practice exist if contributions can only be validated within disciplinary traditions? What becomes of specialist knowledge developed within a practice when it is not appreciated nor accessible outside of that discipline? Is there a place for a creative knowledge-generating art-as-research practice rooted in argument but independent of disciplinary methods of validation?
The most concise and complete description of the theory requires cognitive neuroscience literacy and remains unpublished:
A Reflection on 'Machines that Dream'
Author commentary by Benjamin David Robert Bogart
Publication Date: November 10, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48807/2022.1.0001
The Watching and Dreaming body of work links AI with the apparent irrationality of dreams. The work is located at a paradoxical intersection of knowledge creation; the emphasis on formalism in computer science, the reductionism and empiricism in cognitive neuroscience, and the open-endedness and fluidity of artistic practice cannot be resolved as merely multidisciplinary.
I frame my doctoral work (Bogart 2014b), in which dreaming machines were initially developed, as art-as-research (Busch 2009) where I center the knowledge-generating capacity of artistic practices, make use of specialized knowledge, and consider argument the central pillar of all research. My aim is not merely to make use of knowledge in cognitive neuroscience, but to contribute through the generative capacity of artistic practice. This goal has not been satisfied, as validating a theory developed through art-as-research is challenging; for the Integrative Theory to be validated in cognitive neuroscience, empirical validation and quantitative analysis are required. Adhering to these disciplinary norms would elevate their primacy; I would be conducting science, not art-as-research. The richness and breadth of the computational model make it unamenable to reductionism and empirical validation. It is unclear what aspects of dreaming should be validated; waking/dreaming dynamics? Integration of waking "experience" in dreaming? Realism or causality in dreams? While this work has been worthy of citation by specialists, e.g. Davies (2019), it is not publishable in the disciplinary literature because of its lack of adherence to disciplinary methods. When publishing in interdisciplinary contexts, such as this one, the depth of my engagement with the cognitive neuroscience literature and its support of my argument are not easily communicated for a non-specialist audience. The work remains in limbo, unpublished in disciplinary contexts and merely summarized in interdisciplinary journals.
Artistic practice—with its interdisciplinarity, emphasis on richness and complexity, and lack of prescription of methods and outcomes—is the backbone for art-as-research. My doctoral work has led to peer-reviewed publications (Bogart and Pasquier 2011; Bogart and Pasquier 2013a; Bogart, Pasquier, and Barnes 2013; Bogart 2017a; Bogart 2017b) and peer-reviewed exhibitions (Bogart 2012; Bogart and Pasquier 2013b; Bogart 2014a), as well as talks and an ongoing body of work. Each of these outcomes have different audiences and different degrees of viewer engagement. No single outcome is a primary site for audience engagement with the knowledge produced through this art-as-research.
The very notion of validation in research requires the deployment of well-entrenched methods situated in stable disciplines. Projects such as this push boundaries without subscribing to the supremacy of methods of one domain over another. Validation according to the methods of all constituent disciplines may be unattainable. This project begs deep questions for interdisciplinary and arts-integrative research, such as: How can a radical inter- or a- disciplinary art-as-research practice exist if contributions can only be validated within disciplinary traditions? What becomes of specialist knowledge developed within a practice when it is not appreciated nor accessible outside of that discipline? Is there a place for a creative knowledge-generating art-as-research practice rooted in argument but independent of disciplinary methods of validation?
The most concise and complete description of the theory requires cognitive neuroscience literacy and remains unpublished:
Bogart-An-Integrative-Theory-and-Computational-Model-of-Visual-Mentation.pdf
1359.418 KB · Download / View