Aurore Young: I think there was also another methodology we didn’t choose but that imposed itself on us, which was that we had to talk to a lot of different people. We had to talk to scientists, as well as those who work in scientific institutes and do science communication. We also had to talk to a film producer and people in finance. With all these different people involved in the project in one way or another, we had to find ways to talk that would resonate with all of them. And we realized we couldn’t use the same type of discourse for everyone. So we adapted it depending on who we were talking to.

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: I’m also thinking of another key concept in our approach, for which Aurore and I initially had different views: the notion of entanglement, which is at the heart of philosopher Karen Barad’s thinking. I had approached this term in continuity with her thought, meaning an entanglement between the observed object (the particle), the observer (the scientist), and the measurement device.Our approach was to test different ideas. Sometimes, Aurore and I found them really interesting conceptually, but Caroline would respond: “Where’s the art in all this?” It was like a small power struggle between our disciplines.

Caroline Delétoille: Yes, sometimes it was a bit unclear in my mind. So I would say to them, “Okay, so this thing, this concept, that we’re trying to do. But where does painting fit into all of this?” At the same time, I wanted us to stay grounded in the lab and close to the research. To really talk about all of this.

But also, I think one of the things that mattered—I’m not sure if it’s unique to our collaboration—is that we all have a scientific background. We all started with math, maybe that helped us understand each other better, in a way.

Shelly Rosenblum: In the popularization of quantum physics people often say that the facts of observation and experiments have an actual effect on the very out-comes of those experiments. This is sometimes interpreted to suggest that there isn’t a “ready-made world” out there, that the facts are shaped by our observation. It seems like something analogous is true for the facts of human emotions as well, shaped as they are by human interactions. We don’t think, for example, that emotional goings-on are to be accounted for on an individualistic basis, but rather on a broader social scale. And on the side of artistic practice, the rapport with the audience of the practice often takes center stage for the artist or performer. Could each of you speak to this broad and somewhat confusing area of concern?

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: Thank you very much. You’re right that this observation effect is really central to how we theorized quantum physics. From a physicist’s point, it just means that the observer has an effect on what they observe; that’s the classical interpretation of quantum physics. From a philosophical point of view, it has two consequences: one ontological and one epistemic. The first is the idea that maybe things don’t have properties in themselves, but are simply relative. And from an epistemic point of view, we might ask whether it’s truly possible to know things without a particular perspective.

Aurore Young: I want to enter into a discussion, but you said so many things!

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: It’s just that there are many ways to approach the ques-tion. I don’t want to be too categorical, but one strong approach would be to say that particles don’t actually have intrinsic properties, outside of a relational framework.

Aurore Young: Yes, we interfere with the particle, so there’s a sort of blur, but we still know exactly what it is, how it will behave, and where it will be. We know exactly where it will be centered. When you were talking about a property existing on a sphere, we know it won’t be found on a square or a cube. For example, we know it’ll be a little blurry, but overall, we’ll know the main trajectory of the object.