Formally, this piece consists of two identical stainless columns. Their compositions are deliberately unstable in appearance, sitting on short segments as if the whole were disintegrating. Taken singly, either column, when thought of as a proxy for science itself, carries within itself implications of the precarious nature of our understandings, and the consequent precariousness of our own tenure.

These columns are mounted on Cor-Ten (with appearance of steel) bases that are similar but not identical. Embedded in their differences is the question and the answer to ‘why a diptych?’. Further embedded within this difference is the hope that the viewer will be encouraged to analyze the intellectual raison d’etre of the whole.

One column sits on a truncated rhomboidal pyramid. this is intended to read as a display presentation, implying that the ‘ice’ column, despite its compromised structural state due to fracturing in its lower areas, is nonetheless of value and should be noticed, preserved, and analyzed.

The other base is a rhomboid prism, identical in section but larger than the ‘ice’ column itself. The implications are that the stainless form is a ‘sample within a sample’, a subset, i.e. a strictly scientific analysis and construct, both physical and intellectual.

In combination, the whole is intended to read as a discussion and dialogue between the world of science analysis and the world of presentation, scientific and otherwise, including esthetics. It should be evident that this cuts directly to the core of the art v. science discussion.

As I have elsewhere expressed, to me art and science are sister disciplines, both being founded on the principle of observing the world very, very closely, and then deriving careful interpretive meaning from it. It is hoped that this piece will encourage such thinking, and that in its own small way it can help bridge the unnatural gap between these siblings.