Normality, variation and classification
The idea of normality, whilst superficially straightforward, can be difficult to deal with both conceptually and practically. These problems can be compounded when refining into different classes within an abnormal group. These issues are central to medical science where a fundamental goal is to determine whether a given parameter (e.g. blood pressure) is within the normal range and if not, with which illness the value might be consistent. When dealing with multiple simultaneous variables, as in a medical image, the issues become even more challenging. I have worked with the Institute of Aging and Health, Newcastle University (e.g. here) and we have used various statistical methods to develop diagnostic tools based on the deviation of a given image from a database of normal images. Although tools such as these are very useful, there always remains a philosophical dimension to the question of normality, variation and classification. For example, should we when looking at brain images accept a degree of atrophy as “normal aging”? What level of mild forgetfulness is part of the normal variation and when is this classed as disease?
Several artists have worked with groups of images and explored their variations, differences and similarities. From the seminal work of August Sanders and then Hilla and Bernd Becher has grown Photographic Typology. This method creates sets of images, that allow the viewer to gain a deeper understanding than by viewing the images individually. Although this method may appear deadpan and not subject to the opinion of the artist, in fact the artist makes choices about what to include within the groups and he is therefore making judgments about classification. In my work I have included a degree of chance as well as choice and I may add arbitrary elements to highlight the fact that classification involves human decisions.
The idea of normality, whilst superficially straightforward, can be difficult to deal with both conceptually and practically. These problems can be compounded when refining into different classes within an abnormal group. These issues are central to medical science where a fundamental goal is to determine whether a given parameter (e.g. blood pressure) is within the normal range and if not, with which illness the value might be consistent. When dealing with multiple simultaneous variables, as in a medical image, the issues become even more challenging. I have worked with the Institute of Aging and Health, Newcastle University (e.g. here) and we have used various statistical methods to develop diagnostic tools based on the deviation of a given image from a database of normal images. Although tools such as these are very useful, there always remains a philosophical dimension to the question of normality, variation and classification. For example, should we when looking at brain images accept a degree of atrophy as “normal aging”? What level of mild forgetfulness is part of the normal variation and when is this classed as disease?
Several artists have worked with groups of images and explored their variations, differences and similarities. From the seminal work of August Sanders and then Hilla and Bernd Becher has grown Photographic Typology. This method creates sets of images, that allow the viewer to gain a deeper understanding than by viewing the images individually. Although this method may appear deadpan and not subject to the opinion of the artist, in fact the artist makes choices about what to include within the groups and he is therefore making judgments about classification. In my work I have included a degree of chance as well as choice and I may add arbitrary elements to highlight the fact that classification involves human decisions.
