Nothing cold about science | Justin Fenech

What are your areas of interest, and more specifically how will they tie into this particular talk?

I am a tourist guide by profession, but a poet by dedication. I've been writing for a good eight years now - since I was 16 - and my writing has evolved from mere scribblings to experiments I can't live without. My interest in science came about recently through my search for the true nature of... nature. I have been swallowing up books on subjects ranging from embryology to genetics to astronomy. And as such this talk is somewhat paradoxical; it is not about what it is about. I will be focusing on sexual selection as a possible origin of art, because it's one of the theories that most inspired me. But I want to emphasise that there are so many other ideas, and theories waiting to inspire a recipient artist.

What led you to the idea of art as a by-product of sexual selection, and how convincing do you think this is from a scientific standpoint?

My interest in science came later than my interest in literature and art, so when I started immersing myself in science I was naturally biased towards research and theories that contribute to the nature and origins of art. I came across this theory through my reading of evolutionary psychologists who put forward the theory that the origin of art could be linked with sexual selection. This theory is not my own but I was instantly taken in by it as it unites art with natural laws. I myself am not a scientist so I am not in a position to stand up for its validity, but what's important to me is that this is a scientific theory that inspired me, one of the many waiting out there for writers and artists to explore.

Do you think that a scientific focus on art runs the risk of reducing its emotional impact and stripping it of some of its necessary enigma? If not, why?

Only if you get into the details of the research itself. Science is cold only in the laboratory, but the ideas that come out of a laboratory are more enthralling than anything I've come across. Think of the fact of evolution, the fact that all of life evolved from single-celled organisms around three billion years ago. Scientists, after much work, discovered this, but why shouldn't poets and artists celebrate these eye-opening truths, the same way they have celebrated religious myths for countless centuries? The image of science as something mechanical needs to be done away with.

Could you provide some examples from the world of art and culture that illustrate your theory?

It's everywhere, if you know how to look. Starting from historic times look at the magnificent cave paintings of the Palaeolithic. Masterpieces created around 35,000 years ago, in dark, dingy caves, during the birth of culture. They are products of the human brain, their visualisation, execution and promulgation is as unique to humanity as a beaver's dam is to the beaver. And how could this fail to be sexy? Great art was a sign of an advanced brain, which meant its owner would be more likely to have offspring, who themselves would inherit the 'artistic gene'. But then look around you today. Isn't it romantic if a man woos a woman with poetry? Don't men find female singers attractive?

Do you think there is enough awareness among the Maltese about the inherent potential of inter-disciplinary approaches to art and science? If not, what do you think needs to be done in order to raise awareness about it/get people interested?

I think there is hardly any awareness of the potential of science in art. Clichés are rampant in the artistic and literary scene, some harder to spot than others. And when you tell people about science in art they automatically think of science-fiction. I think it's a tough battle, and I am not a preacher of any sort. My vision is of a movement of writers and artists inspired by something no one has ever been inspired by before, something novel and endlessly inspiring.

The Biology of Art will be delivered at the Music Room of St James Cavalier this evening at 19:30.