by Peter Knapp, a Swiss photographed who did a whole series with clouds, and I liked that.

For the public, we wanted to play with that feeling, that sensitivity. Let’s say you’re in a space that blurs your sense of orientation. You move forward, and then sud-denly you have a vision, you remember that scene. You pass through a cloud, and you’re not sure where you are. Then comes the perception of sound. We really wanted to explore what a quantum sound might be, a sound atmosphere.

When working on this analogy, to make it tangible, we had more and more dis-cussions, we got deeper and deeper into the lab. And we realized that the lab was a bit like an artist’s workshop.

Slowly, the idea of another room naturally emerged. We wanted the visitors to move from one world to another: from the world of the atom to the world of the lab. You enter the back room, open a door…what happens? I like that blurry zone between the artist’s workshop and the scientific lab. Scientists are also craftsmen, in a way. And there’s a real similarity in the research processes. There’s an aes-thetics of mystery and the unknown that emerges.

In the end, this will also be part of the exhibition. We will also work with a director to create a film that will bring together all these worlds. The world of atoms will be connected with that of the scientists collaborating in the laboratory—all under the director’s gaze.

Shelly Rosenblum: Where we started, Aurore was saying that she sits with the strangeness of the unknown, but then there’s an act of translation. We talked so much last time about analogy as a tool, and a lot of today’s conversation was about the inherent, problematic nature of the analogy framework. For example, a philosopher speaking with a physicist. What are the limitations of that? In col-laborations like these at some point, you have to suspend your disbelief and move away, maybe not from the rigor, but from the precision, in order to actually do the work together.

Caroline Delétoille: One last thing a physicist told me, that really struck me, is that when you talk to a scientist or a physicist, what you expect from them is pure objectivity. And when you talk to an artist about what they do, you expect pure subjectivity. But these are also injunctions. And it’s precisely these two things that we’re trying to bring together.

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: Yes, that’s true. I don’t know about you, Caroline, but Aurore might be the most objective of us. But as a philosopher, I also work with another form of objectivity. So we had to navigate between that.

Aurore Young: Yes. I think it’s a prejudice about artists and scientists, right? I mean, artists need to show rigor in their techniques. And scientists need to be creative to come up with new ways to think about the world. So, in the end, maybe it’s not that difficult to work together… once we get past these ideas.

Caroline Delétoille: Those prejudices, yes.

Shelly Rosenblum: But it’s a critical part of these collaborations that’s so pow-erful, which is the dismantling of those stubborn stereotypes and what you call prejudice.