.
2009- 2010
Sat 12 December 2009:
Book presentation 'Confronting Mortality with Art and Science' in boekhandel Liber Mundi, Antwerpsestraat 132, 2500 Lier. With exhibition and live performance.
Sun 13 December 2009 - starts at 10:00 AM
POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 2010:
Dissection of the Human Body, part 2
Location: Anatomy Room, UA, Campus Groenenborger
IMPORTANT: Further details will follow on this site and by mail to all attendees in the near future.
For pictures and reactions of Dissection of the Human Body, part 1:
click here
15 - 20 March 2010:
- antARTik
- Exhibition and evening symposium
'ART Researches SCIENCE - Artistiek Onderzoek in de Wetenschappen'
in the Foyer, UA, Campus Drie Eiken.
The exhibited works will be created during and inspired by the Dissection Day in February.
Sat 20 March 2010:
Open Campusdag UA
All these dates will be confirmed in November 2009!
October 20, 2009
October 16, 2009
The Wellcome Trust
Science becomes art at exhibitions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8308672.stm
Fusion of science and art:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305899.stm
The art of science:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8308217.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8308672.stm
Fusion of science and art:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305899.stm
The art of science:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8308217.stm
October 12, 2009
Experimentele kunst
als onderzoek in de kunst
Onderzoek in de kunst is natuurlijk niet hetzelfde als onderzoek over kunst. Dit laatste immers, is het domein van de kunstwetenschap, ook al kan die in haar aanspraken op wetenschappelijkheid worden betwist op grond van het artefaktische van haar studieobjekt. Die betwistingsgrond nadert het evidente wanneer kunstenaars –vooropgesteld dat ze daartoe enige kompetentie zouden hebben- kunstwetenschap zouden gaan beoefenen. Het subjekt-objekt onderscheid wordt dan dermate vaag, dat de onderzoeksresultaten louter egotisch kunnen worden.
Onderzoek impliceert automatisch dat er iets is wat wordt onderzocht en ook, dat er omtrent dat iets een vraag, een probleem bestaat. Kunst nu, die niet problematisch is, kunst die dus niet iets onderzoekt, kan mijns inziens node kunst worden genoemd, omdat ze zich dan tot louter reproduktieve, hooguit wat interpretatieve, ambachtelijkheid zou beperken. Ze is dan zoiets als een laborant die geheel volgens de recepten, regels en rituelen, kolven, weegschalen en reagentia hanteert, maar dat zou doen zonder vraagstelling, zonder enig doel. Of, zoals een musicus die zo goed als mogelijk via zijn motoriek, al dan niet bemiddeld via een speeltuig, een gegeven partituur poogt te verklanken ter verstrooing van zijn medemens. Relevante kunst, kunst met een relevante probleemstelling, is dan ook, in de lijn van deze redenering, van nature uit experimenteel. Het probleem, de vraag, is haar belangrijkste drijfveer. Wat dit betreft is er dan ook geen enkel fundamenteel verschil tussen kunst en wetenschap. Het grote verschil zit enerzijds in de rigiditeit van de onderzoeksmetode en anderzijds in de aard van de problemen die in kunst worden onderzocht. Wat dit laatste betreft, hebben die problemen in allereerste plaats te maken met wat ik –ruim opgevat- expressie zou willen noemen. Experimentele kunst zoekt naar en ontwikkelt expressiemiddelen. Worden de resultaten belangwekkend genoeg bevonden, dan wordt het gewoonweg kunst. De loutere hantering van expressiemiddelen volstaat hier geenszins. Deze expressiemiddelen kunnen erg individueel en specifiek zijn, maar, evenzeer algemeen bruikbaar en relevant voor vele anderen die met gelijkaardige expressieproblemen te maken hebben. De ontwikkeling van expressiemiddelen gebeurt inderdaad in allereerste plaats binnen de kunst zelf. Tenminste, wanneer het om experimentele kunst gaat.
Wie nu in deze kontekst expressie te eng opvat, begrijpt ons niet goed: expressie is geenszins het unieke terrein van de kunst! Ook een wetenschappelijk onderzoeker moet uiteindelijk expressiebekwaam zijn, zoniet kan hij niet eens zijn onderzoeksresultaten naar voor brengen. Voor de ‘leesbaarheid’ van zijn expressie is uiteraard kommunikatiebekwaamheid noodzakelijk. In het geval van wetenschap is daarbij een zo groot mogelijke eenduidigheid wenselijk. Wanneer het echter gaat om expressie van affekten en/of koncepten, dan is in eerste plaats vereist dat die expressie bij diegenen tot wie zij gebeurlijk is gericht, ook affekten en/of koncepten weet op te roepen. Eenduidigheid is hier niet noodzakelijk een vereiste, hoewel er een hoge mate van gelijklopendheid kan bestaan. Dat die bestaat blijkt overigens uit het simpele feit dat heel wat kunstuitingen door grote groepen mensen op een gelijkaardige wijze worden geduid. Een requiem is geen lustige dansmuziek.
Kunst is als het ware voor-talig omdat zij de konventionele semantiek vooraf gaat of minstens verlegt. Daarom kan haar syntax ook niet in een systeem van vaste regels worden vastgelegd, laat staan voorgeschreven. De voortaligheid van artistieke expressie maakt dat zij als kunst per definitie begaan moet zijn met een zoeken naar een adekwate syntax en daarin alleen al experimenteel moet zijn. Die adekwate syntax komt in eerste plaats tot uiting in de samenhang van de vorm: de architektuur van het kunstwerk. Welkdanige vorm ook, kan slechts worden getoond en gegeven, door realisatie in een materieel of energetisch substraat. De produktie van vorm in dit substraat vergt van dit laatste opnieuw een zekere geschiktheid die niet a priori is gegeven. Onderzoek in de kunst is dan ook in de eerste plaats begaan met de ontwikkeling van substraten of middelen, waarin en waarmee de syntax zo optimaal mogelijk realiseerbaar is. Uiteraard behoort ook het experimenteel onderzoek naar bewerkingsmogelijkheden van die substraten, tot dit onderzoek in de kunst.
Het grote verschil tussen wetenschappelijk onderzoek en onderzoek in de kunst, schuilt hierin dat dit laatste onderzoek geen samenhangende theorie bouwt waarbinnen en in funktie waarvan aanvankelijke hypotezen als stellingen worden bewezen. Het onderzoek in de kunst, of, de experimentele kunst, hoeft niets te bewijzen. Het moet aantonen, demonstreren, mogelijkheden verruimen en, zo mogelijk, overtuigen. Wil men ruimte scheppen voor echt onderzoek in de kunst, dan is de eerste voorwaarde daartoe het scheppen van een permanent kunstlaboratorium: een vrijplaats vanwaaruit experimentele kunst aansluiting kan vinden bij haar eigentijdse omgeving en de middelen die zowel door wetenschap als technologie binnen die omgeving worden aangereikt. Het belang van die bruggen en de interdisciplinariteit die ervoor noodzakelijk is kan niet genoeg worden beklemtoond: het is toch ziekelijk en aberant dat het gros van alle kanonieke expressiemiddelen waarvan de hantering in onze onderwijsinstellingen nog ambachtelijk wordt onderwezen, stammen uit historische tijdvakken die minstens een tot vijf eeuwen achter ons liggen. Alsof die eigen tijd geen middelen en inzichten zou voortbrengen die als basis kunnen dienen voor heel wat adekwater expressiemiddelen...
Utopisch denkend, geloof ik dat het integrale hoger kunstonderwijs zou moeten samenvallen met een konceptie van dergelijk laboratorium. Nu bestaat zo'n labo in eerste aanzet en beperkt tot het domein van de muzikale expressiemiddelen, en bovendien vrijwel zonder materiele ondersteuning, in de schoot van Stichting Logos. Voorlopig echter, wil ik alleen pleiten voor zulk laboratorium als akademisch eiland, als vertrekpunt van onderzoek in de kunst, die daarbij uitsluitend als experimentele kunst is verstaan.
PS: de term kunst in deze tekst dekt zowel de muziek, de literatuur, de dans, architektuur en het geheel van de beeldende kunst.
dr.Godfried-Willem Raes
Barcelona, okt.2003
bijdrage voor ‘Reflexief’, tijdschrift van de Hogeschool Gent.
de auteur is licentiaat in de wijsbegeerte en doctor in de muziekwetenschap. Hij bouwde tot op heden een twintigtal musicerende interaktieve robots en is docent kompositie en akoestiek aan het departement muziek & drama van de Hogeschool Gent.
PS: (2007) de hier verdedigde opvatting over onderzoek in de kunsten sluit nauw aan bij een traditie die terzake in de progressief hedendaagse muziekwereld sedert de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw gangbaar is geworden. Denken we maar alleen al aan de vele varianten van de 'Centre de Recherches Musicales' in franstalige regios, 'Untersuchszentrum fuer Tonuntersuchung', 'Studio for Electronic Music','Artistic Research Center'... waarvan de naamgeving alleen al toch symptomatisch is. We konstateren dat vandaag enkele mentale zonderlingen het begrip rekupererend en reaktionair proberen te misbruiken voor zuiver reproduktieve en historizerende doeleinden, een beetje zoals de operawereld in het laatste kwart van de 20e eeuw de hippe term 'muziekteater' is gaan inlijven, een term die nochtans precies door de avant-garde (Kagel, Cage, Stockhausen...) werd bedacht als tegengif tegen die aftandse opera. We konstateren met grote pijn in het hart dat in bepaalde instellingen nu zelfs fondsen worden vrijgemaakt voor de 'ontginning' van partituren van oude, terecht vergeten en totaal onbenullige konservatoriumdirekteuren onder het mom van 'onderzoek in de kunsten'...
Onderzoek in de kunst is natuurlijk niet hetzelfde als onderzoek over kunst. Dit laatste immers, is het domein van de kunstwetenschap, ook al kan die in haar aanspraken op wetenschappelijkheid worden betwist op grond van het artefaktische van haar studieobjekt. Die betwistingsgrond nadert het evidente wanneer kunstenaars –vooropgesteld dat ze daartoe enige kompetentie zouden hebben- kunstwetenschap zouden gaan beoefenen. Het subjekt-objekt onderscheid wordt dan dermate vaag, dat de onderzoeksresultaten louter egotisch kunnen worden.
Onderzoek impliceert automatisch dat er iets is wat wordt onderzocht en ook, dat er omtrent dat iets een vraag, een probleem bestaat. Kunst nu, die niet problematisch is, kunst die dus niet iets onderzoekt, kan mijns inziens node kunst worden genoemd, omdat ze zich dan tot louter reproduktieve, hooguit wat interpretatieve, ambachtelijkheid zou beperken. Ze is dan zoiets als een laborant die geheel volgens de recepten, regels en rituelen, kolven, weegschalen en reagentia hanteert, maar dat zou doen zonder vraagstelling, zonder enig doel. Of, zoals een musicus die zo goed als mogelijk via zijn motoriek, al dan niet bemiddeld via een speeltuig, een gegeven partituur poogt te verklanken ter verstrooing van zijn medemens. Relevante kunst, kunst met een relevante probleemstelling, is dan ook, in de lijn van deze redenering, van nature uit experimenteel. Het probleem, de vraag, is haar belangrijkste drijfveer. Wat dit betreft is er dan ook geen enkel fundamenteel verschil tussen kunst en wetenschap. Het grote verschil zit enerzijds in de rigiditeit van de onderzoeksmetode en anderzijds in de aard van de problemen die in kunst worden onderzocht. Wat dit laatste betreft, hebben die problemen in allereerste plaats te maken met wat ik –ruim opgevat- expressie zou willen noemen. Experimentele kunst zoekt naar en ontwikkelt expressiemiddelen. Worden de resultaten belangwekkend genoeg bevonden, dan wordt het gewoonweg kunst. De loutere hantering van expressiemiddelen volstaat hier geenszins. Deze expressiemiddelen kunnen erg individueel en specifiek zijn, maar, evenzeer algemeen bruikbaar en relevant voor vele anderen die met gelijkaardige expressieproblemen te maken hebben. De ontwikkeling van expressiemiddelen gebeurt inderdaad in allereerste plaats binnen de kunst zelf. Tenminste, wanneer het om experimentele kunst gaat.
Wie nu in deze kontekst expressie te eng opvat, begrijpt ons niet goed: expressie is geenszins het unieke terrein van de kunst! Ook een wetenschappelijk onderzoeker moet uiteindelijk expressiebekwaam zijn, zoniet kan hij niet eens zijn onderzoeksresultaten naar voor brengen. Voor de ‘leesbaarheid’ van zijn expressie is uiteraard kommunikatiebekwaamheid noodzakelijk. In het geval van wetenschap is daarbij een zo groot mogelijke eenduidigheid wenselijk. Wanneer het echter gaat om expressie van affekten en/of koncepten, dan is in eerste plaats vereist dat die expressie bij diegenen tot wie zij gebeurlijk is gericht, ook affekten en/of koncepten weet op te roepen. Eenduidigheid is hier niet noodzakelijk een vereiste, hoewel er een hoge mate van gelijklopendheid kan bestaan. Dat die bestaat blijkt overigens uit het simpele feit dat heel wat kunstuitingen door grote groepen mensen op een gelijkaardige wijze worden geduid. Een requiem is geen lustige dansmuziek.
Kunst is als het ware voor-talig omdat zij de konventionele semantiek vooraf gaat of minstens verlegt. Daarom kan haar syntax ook niet in een systeem van vaste regels worden vastgelegd, laat staan voorgeschreven. De voortaligheid van artistieke expressie maakt dat zij als kunst per definitie begaan moet zijn met een zoeken naar een adekwate syntax en daarin alleen al experimenteel moet zijn. Die adekwate syntax komt in eerste plaats tot uiting in de samenhang van de vorm: de architektuur van het kunstwerk. Welkdanige vorm ook, kan slechts worden getoond en gegeven, door realisatie in een materieel of energetisch substraat. De produktie van vorm in dit substraat vergt van dit laatste opnieuw een zekere geschiktheid die niet a priori is gegeven. Onderzoek in de kunst is dan ook in de eerste plaats begaan met de ontwikkeling van substraten of middelen, waarin en waarmee de syntax zo optimaal mogelijk realiseerbaar is. Uiteraard behoort ook het experimenteel onderzoek naar bewerkingsmogelijkheden van die substraten, tot dit onderzoek in de kunst.
Het grote verschil tussen wetenschappelijk onderzoek en onderzoek in de kunst, schuilt hierin dat dit laatste onderzoek geen samenhangende theorie bouwt waarbinnen en in funktie waarvan aanvankelijke hypotezen als stellingen worden bewezen. Het onderzoek in de kunst, of, de experimentele kunst, hoeft niets te bewijzen. Het moet aantonen, demonstreren, mogelijkheden verruimen en, zo mogelijk, overtuigen. Wil men ruimte scheppen voor echt onderzoek in de kunst, dan is de eerste voorwaarde daartoe het scheppen van een permanent kunstlaboratorium: een vrijplaats vanwaaruit experimentele kunst aansluiting kan vinden bij haar eigentijdse omgeving en de middelen die zowel door wetenschap als technologie binnen die omgeving worden aangereikt. Het belang van die bruggen en de interdisciplinariteit die ervoor noodzakelijk is kan niet genoeg worden beklemtoond: het is toch ziekelijk en aberant dat het gros van alle kanonieke expressiemiddelen waarvan de hantering in onze onderwijsinstellingen nog ambachtelijk wordt onderwezen, stammen uit historische tijdvakken die minstens een tot vijf eeuwen achter ons liggen. Alsof die eigen tijd geen middelen en inzichten zou voortbrengen die als basis kunnen dienen voor heel wat adekwater expressiemiddelen...
Utopisch denkend, geloof ik dat het integrale hoger kunstonderwijs zou moeten samenvallen met een konceptie van dergelijk laboratorium. Nu bestaat zo'n labo in eerste aanzet en beperkt tot het domein van de muzikale expressiemiddelen, en bovendien vrijwel zonder materiele ondersteuning, in de schoot van Stichting Logos. Voorlopig echter, wil ik alleen pleiten voor zulk laboratorium als akademisch eiland, als vertrekpunt van onderzoek in de kunst, die daarbij uitsluitend als experimentele kunst is verstaan.
PS: de term kunst in deze tekst dekt zowel de muziek, de literatuur, de dans, architektuur en het geheel van de beeldende kunst.
dr.Godfried-Willem Raes
Barcelona, okt.2003
bijdrage voor ‘Reflexief’, tijdschrift van de Hogeschool Gent.
de auteur is licentiaat in de wijsbegeerte en doctor in de muziekwetenschap. Hij bouwde tot op heden een twintigtal musicerende interaktieve robots en is docent kompositie en akoestiek aan het departement muziek & drama van de Hogeschool Gent.
PS: (2007) de hier verdedigde opvatting over onderzoek in de kunsten sluit nauw aan bij een traditie die terzake in de progressief hedendaagse muziekwereld sedert de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw gangbaar is geworden. Denken we maar alleen al aan de vele varianten van de 'Centre de Recherches Musicales' in franstalige regios, 'Untersuchszentrum fuer Tonuntersuchung', 'Studio for Electronic Music','Artistic Research Center'... waarvan de naamgeving alleen al toch symptomatisch is. We konstateren dat vandaag enkele mentale zonderlingen het begrip rekupererend en reaktionair proberen te misbruiken voor zuiver reproduktieve en historizerende doeleinden, een beetje zoals de operawereld in het laatste kwart van de 20e eeuw de hippe term 'muziekteater' is gaan inlijven, een term die nochtans precies door de avant-garde (Kagel, Cage, Stockhausen...) werd bedacht als tegengif tegen die aftandse opera. We konstateren met grote pijn in het hart dat in bepaalde instellingen nu zelfs fondsen worden vrijgemaakt voor de 'ontginning' van partituren van oude, terecht vergeten en totaal onbenullige konservatoriumdirekteuren onder het mom van 'onderzoek in de kunsten'...
October 11, 2009
Art as Research
Stephen Wilson, Professor Conceptual Design, San Francisco State University. swilson@sfsu.edu. Copyright, 1996
Cultural Importance of Scientific Research & Technology Development
The arts are perplexed about what to do in response to the growing importance of scientific and technological research in shaping culture. One response positions artists as consumers of the new tools, using them to create new images, sounds, and video; another response sees artists emphasizing the critical functions of art to comment on the developments from the distance; a final approach urges artists to enter into the heart of research as core participants. See my paper "Dark & Light Visions" ( SIGGRAPH Visual Proceedings, Art Show Catalog, ACM, Chicago, 1993. Also available at http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson) for a more detailed analysis.
It is a critical error to conceive of contemporary research as merely a technical enterprise; it has profound practical and philosophical implications for the culture. The shaping of research and development agendas could benefit from the involvement of a wider range of participants including artists.
Scientific and technological research is not as "objective" as many of its practitioners would like to believe. While some of its practices strive toward objectivity, the whole enterprise is subject to larger political, economic, and social forces. Historians of science and technology have documented the winds that determine what research ends up getting supported, promoted, and accepted and what products win in the marketplace. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1970) shows how paradigms dominate thought and scientific practice until new paradigms develop. Many possibly significant theories and technologies are ignored.
As research increases in general cultural importance, it becomes more dangerous to accept this triage as inevitable. Valuable lines of inquiry die from lack of support because they are not within favor of particular scientific disciplines. New technologies with fascinating potential are abandoned because they are judged not marketable. Our culture must develop methods to avoid the premature snuffing of valuable lines of inquiry and development. I believe the arts can fill a critical role as an independent zone of research. Everyday life is increasingly dominated by the objects and cultural forms created by technology research. For example, telephones, computers, entertainment systems, medical equipment, transportation systems, governmental and policing systems, and product distribution technologies shape the ways people in the developed world spend their days, interact with others, and conceptualize the present and the future. The output of technology research is not confined to small technical niches. Theorists such as Baudrillard and Virilio, for example, expose the hidden assumptions, shaping of categories and pervasive consequences of technology.
Scientific research similarly reaches beyond narrow academic questions. Astronomers attempt to understand the origins and shape of the universe. Breaking with all prior human history, they can look at the universe using radio wave, ultraviolet, and infrared "eyes" and see a universe quite different than what has been known. Biologists increasingly unravel mysteries of life and invent methods for manipulating the genetic heart of life. Scientific research will have profound practical and philosophical implications.
Survey of areas of emerging research of interest to artists
What is an Appropriate Role for the Arts?
Throughout the last centuries (after Leonardo) during which science and technology have been increasing in importance, the arts have failed to develop a viable role. Often they have tried to ignore these developments and treat them as peripheral to the core of culture. Even when artists did attend to these developments, they did so as distant commentators, sniping from the audience, often without deep understanding of the world views and processes of scientific research. I believe there is a much stronger role for the arts in which artists integrate critical commentary with high level knowledge and participation in the science and technology worlds.
For the last sixteen years I have been exploring this approach of artist as researcher. I have incorporated the monitoring of research developments into my artistic discipline. I monitor science and technology journals, participate in on-line forums, and attend technology trade shows and academic meetings. I engage the developers in discussion about their products. I have been appointed as beta tester and developer for several technology companies and acted as artist in residence in corporate research centers. I have functioned as an inventor and won a patent for a method I developed to integrate interactive electronics with print.
Emerging technologies are my medium. I seek them out before they become widely known. I focus on them to understand where they come from, where they might go, and what might be their cultural implications. I experiment with them to see if they have unexplored potentials.
These years as a shadow researcher have been illuminating. I have read in the literature of intriguing developments that never saw the light of day. I have seen many inventions and emerging technologies killed because marketing departments judged that no money could be made. I have seen entire R&D departments and their years of research blown away by the winds of corporate politics. Government and corporate support for basic research has almost disappeared and the concern with the bottom line has shortened the payback horizon to the point that few risks are taken. I have encountered debates in the scientific community that devalue approaches that do not fit the paradigms currently in favor.
I am worried that the invisible hand of the marketplace might not be so wise as many would like to believe. The judgments that make short term sense for stockholders do not make sense for the culture. The peer review referees of scientific journals cannot always see beyond their disciplinary blinders. Many good ideas are orphaned, unheeded in the wilderness. Scientific and technological research are so critical that we cannot afford the premature elimination of these ideas and efforts that do not find favor through traditional channels.
The arts can function as an independent zone of research. They could become the place where abandoned, discredited, and unorthodox inquires could be pursued. They might very well value research according to criteria quite different from those of the commercial and scientific worlds. The roles of artists could incorporate other roles such as researcher, inventor, hacker, and entrepreneur. Even within research labs artist participation in research teams could add a perspective that could help drive the research process. (See my editorial, "Industrial Research Artist" Leonardo, vol 17:no.2 - 1984). Several traditions of the arts uniquely equip them for this function:
Artistic traditions of iconoclasm mean that artists are likely to take up lines of inquiry devalued by others.
The valuing of social commentary means that artists are likely to integrate widely ranging cultural issues in their research.
Artists are more likely to incorporate criteria such as celebration and wonder than commercial enterprizes.
The art's interest in communication means that artists could bring the scientific and technological possibilities to a wider public better than peers in other fields.
Artistic valuing of creativity and innovation meant that new perspectives might be applied to inquiries.
The recent history of the personal computer illustrates the need for this independent research function and the role the arts might serve. Early developers such as Apple Computer founders Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs found little support for their ideas about the personal computer from the companies they worked for. Supervisors signed waivers on the ideas because they could not imagine any market for a desktop computer used by individuals. Similarly, the discipline of computer science was mostly uninterested in software and hardware issues related to these computers. Advances often came from individuals who worked outside traditional academic and business channels. Teenagers became world experts and artists made significant contributions in the development of interface design and image/ sound processing.
Similarly demonstrating the value of art-research cross fertilization , the SIGGRAPH (ACM international organization for computer graphics research) annual meetings have included an art show since their beginnings. These shows have been influential in several ways. Artists have been able to learn about emerging computer graphics research and technologies long before they became products to the extent that they could start experimenting with them. In parallel fashion, researchers have become acquainted with artistic work that pushed the technology in unanticipated directions and offered ideas for new research directions.
If the culture had to rely only on traditional lines of research, we might have had to wait much longer for the developments that have profoundly shaped the last decades. This story potentially could be repeated many times in many other fields of inquiry if alternative venues for research are developed. The arts could well serve this function if artists are prepared to learn the knowledge, language, work styles, self discipline, and information networks that are instrumental in their fields of interest.
Preparing Artist/ Researchers
What must artists do differently than they always have done to prepare to participate in the world of research. They must broaden their definitions of art materials and contexts. They must become curious about scientific and technological research and acquire the skills and knowledge that will allow them to significantly participate in these worlds. (See my article "Research and Development as Source of Ideas and Inspiration for Artists" - Leonardo vol 24:no. 3 1991- for examples of research that could be of interest for artists.) They must expand conventional notions of what constitutes an artistic education. The parameters of the science and technology education required is not yet clear. Can artists find the right mix of objective and subjective processes? Can artists learn enough to engage in research at a non-dilettante level? Scientists and technology researchers who have devoted their entire professional lives to educating themselves about topics being investigated might be sceptical.
At the same time artists must keep alive artistic traditions of iconoclasm, critical perspectives, play, and sensual communication with audiences. They must be willing to undertake art explorations that do not neatly fit in historically validated media and offer their work in new contexts. Here are some concrete steps artists can take to prepare:
Pay attention to discourse about technical and scientific topics in popular and professional media. Develop the ability to penetrate beneath the surface presentation to think about unexplored research directions and unanticipated implications.
Acquire background knowledge and skills related to technological topics either through formal and informal means
Learn about the information sources used by scientists and engineers to learn about emerging fields including academic and professional journals, trade shows, academic meetings, and equipment supply sources Many of the trade magazines are free for validated research practitioners. (Artists can acquire this validation by self-identifying their art investigations as research.)
Learn about relevant on-line information resources such as mailing lists, newsgroups, and Web sites that have become so crucial in scientific communication. (Luckily the growth of the Internet and World Wide Web have made it easier than ever for artists in enter into these information networks.)
Develop new kinds of mutually beneficial collaborations with companies, universities, and other organizations involved in research.
What is a Viable Role for Artists in Research Settings?
The viability of this kind of collaboration is so critical to the future of both art and research that it is worth thinking about in more detail. What can researchers contribute to art and what can artists contribute to research? Why can high tech companies gain from artists being involved?
Much of the most well known collaborations between artists and scientists/engineers do not provide good models. For example, the EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) in the 60's and the LA County Museum collaborations in Art & Technology produced some interesting art but did not profoundly address the role of artists in research. Often the engineers functioned as technical assistants to the artists or the artists dabbled with new technologies.
Better models would provide more mutual benefit. Early examples, include Bell Labs involvement of artists in sound research that was instrumental to telephony, electronic sound, and electronic voice research and electronic music. Also, artist Sonia Sheridan's artist in residency at the 3M research center in the 70's helped influence the development of color copier technology as well as shaping her development of the Generative Systems program at the Art Institute of Chicago that influenced so many artists. More contemporary examples include the artist-in-residency programs initiated by the Xerox PARC research center and Interval research company. These collaborations experimented with mutual definitions of research agendas. The Xerox PARC experience will be described more fully in a book to be published by MIT Press.
Skeptics sometimes wonder what possible contribution artists can make to serious research and development. Artists can augment the research process in several ways. They can define new kinds of research questions, provide unorthodox interpretations of results, point out missed opportunities for development, explore and articulate wide ranging implications of the research, represent potential user perspectives, and help communicate research findings in effective and provocative ways. They can bring centuries of artistic experience to bear on the technological future. They often approach problems in ways quite different than those of scientists and engineers. The critical role of designers and artists in computer human interface research over the last years demonstrates this new model of interdisciplinary research.
Computer Art is Not the Future - New Challenges
Many "high tech" artists believe they have already addressed the future by becoming computer artists who work with digital image, sound, and interactive multimedia. They have made a critical error. They have misunderstood the real significance of artists' work with computers during the last decade and a half. The new media are interesting, but more important is the fact that artists were experimenting with microcomputers at almost the same time that other kinds of developers and researchers were. Artists were not merely using the results of research conducted by others but were actually participating as researchers themselves.
Many new technologies such as genetic microbiology promise to have similar or even greater impact on life and thought. Artists need to actively patrol the frontiers of scientific and technological research to identify future trends that could benefit from the artist/research inquiry. Knowledge of computers and the Internet will be valuable assets because they will be required tools in most areas of research. Artists who think, however, they are in the vanguard because they work will computers may soon find themselves in the backguard. Below I list some areas of scientific inquiry and technological development that I believe may have cultural impact and will be fruitful areas for artistic inquiry. This diverse idiosyncratic list is by no means exhaustive and identification of other areas of interest should be considered an important artistic activity of our era:
New biology
Extra-sensory phenomena
Animal Consciousness
Brain physiology
Medical technology
Touch, Taste, and Smell research
Biosensors
Artificial life
Alternative Energy
Materials science
Cosmology
Non visual astronomy
Space science
Artificial Intelligence
Hypermedia Robotics
Gesture recognition
Speech recognition & synthesis
Wearable computing
Information visualization
Groupware
Computer-Telephone Integration
Inspectable movies
Virtual Reality
Ubiquitous Computing
Surveillance & remote sensing
Bar codes and auto ID
GPS (geographic locating systems)
Intelligent home
Intelligent hi-way
The Integration of Research and Art
Research is shaping the future in profound ways beyond the utilitarian confines of the technology produced. Our culture desperately needs wide involvement in the definition of research agendas, the actual investigation processes, and in the exploration of the implications of what is discovered. Artists can contribute significantly to this discourse by developing a new kind of artist/researcher role.
The appropriate contours of this involvement are not yet defined. Much experimentation is required. How can research settings learn to be open enough to benefit from the unorthodox contributions artists might make? How can artists learn to involve themselves in the ways and byways of researchers without losing touch with their artistic roots. (Many of the best young artists I had as students who became involved as researchers ultimately ended up being seduced by the recognition and economic rewards of research that they quit functioning as artists.) Also scientific inquiry and technology development are not identical processes; what kind of involvement in each might artists fashion for themselves
I am not claiming that artists should act exactly like researchers. If they did, they would be unlikely to make any unique contribution. Contemporary art often includes elements of commentary, irony and critique missing from "serious" research. Similarly scientists and technologists strive toward objectivity; artists cultivate their idiosyncratic subjectivity as a major feature of what they do. The "research" that artists created will most likely look different than that produced by traditional researchers. It would work like art always does - provoking and moving audiences through its communicative power and unique perspectives. Still it might simultaneously work as research - using systematic investigative processes to develop new technological possibilities or to discover useful new knowledge or perspectives.
Maybe the segmented categorization of artist and researcher will itself prove to be a historical anachronism; maybe new kinds of integrated roles will develop. Signs of this happening already appear. Some of the hackers who pioneered microcomputer developments may one day be seen as artists because of their intensity and their culturally revolutionary views and work. Similarly some art shows such as Ars Electronica now define research ideas as core themes (for example, artificial life) and invite researchers along with artists as key presenters. Research has radically altered our culture and will continue to do so. Art must be an essential part of this process.
Cultural Importance of Scientific Research & Technology Development
The arts are perplexed about what to do in response to the growing importance of scientific and technological research in shaping culture. One response positions artists as consumers of the new tools, using them to create new images, sounds, and video; another response sees artists emphasizing the critical functions of art to comment on the developments from the distance; a final approach urges artists to enter into the heart of research as core participants. See my paper "Dark & Light Visions" ( SIGGRAPH Visual Proceedings, Art Show Catalog, ACM, Chicago, 1993. Also available at http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson) for a more detailed analysis.
It is a critical error to conceive of contemporary research as merely a technical enterprise; it has profound practical and philosophical implications for the culture. The shaping of research and development agendas could benefit from the involvement of a wider range of participants including artists.
Scientific and technological research is not as "objective" as many of its practitioners would like to believe. While some of its practices strive toward objectivity, the whole enterprise is subject to larger political, economic, and social forces. Historians of science and technology have documented the winds that determine what research ends up getting supported, promoted, and accepted and what products win in the marketplace. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1970) shows how paradigms dominate thought and scientific practice until new paradigms develop. Many possibly significant theories and technologies are ignored.
As research increases in general cultural importance, it becomes more dangerous to accept this triage as inevitable. Valuable lines of inquiry die from lack of support because they are not within favor of particular scientific disciplines. New technologies with fascinating potential are abandoned because they are judged not marketable. Our culture must develop methods to avoid the premature snuffing of valuable lines of inquiry and development. I believe the arts can fill a critical role as an independent zone of research. Everyday life is increasingly dominated by the objects and cultural forms created by technology research. For example, telephones, computers, entertainment systems, medical equipment, transportation systems, governmental and policing systems, and product distribution technologies shape the ways people in the developed world spend their days, interact with others, and conceptualize the present and the future. The output of technology research is not confined to small technical niches. Theorists such as Baudrillard and Virilio, for example, expose the hidden assumptions, shaping of categories and pervasive consequences of technology.
Scientific research similarly reaches beyond narrow academic questions. Astronomers attempt to understand the origins and shape of the universe. Breaking with all prior human history, they can look at the universe using radio wave, ultraviolet, and infrared "eyes" and see a universe quite different than what has been known. Biologists increasingly unravel mysteries of life and invent methods for manipulating the genetic heart of life. Scientific research will have profound practical and philosophical implications.
Survey of areas of emerging research of interest to artists
What is an Appropriate Role for the Arts?
Throughout the last centuries (after Leonardo) during which science and technology have been increasing in importance, the arts have failed to develop a viable role. Often they have tried to ignore these developments and treat them as peripheral to the core of culture. Even when artists did attend to these developments, they did so as distant commentators, sniping from the audience, often without deep understanding of the world views and processes of scientific research. I believe there is a much stronger role for the arts in which artists integrate critical commentary with high level knowledge and participation in the science and technology worlds.
For the last sixteen years I have been exploring this approach of artist as researcher. I have incorporated the monitoring of research developments into my artistic discipline. I monitor science and technology journals, participate in on-line forums, and attend technology trade shows and academic meetings. I engage the developers in discussion about their products. I have been appointed as beta tester and developer for several technology companies and acted as artist in residence in corporate research centers. I have functioned as an inventor and won a patent for a method I developed to integrate interactive electronics with print.
Emerging technologies are my medium. I seek them out before they become widely known. I focus on them to understand where they come from, where they might go, and what might be their cultural implications. I experiment with them to see if they have unexplored potentials.
These years as a shadow researcher have been illuminating. I have read in the literature of intriguing developments that never saw the light of day. I have seen many inventions and emerging technologies killed because marketing departments judged that no money could be made. I have seen entire R&D departments and their years of research blown away by the winds of corporate politics. Government and corporate support for basic research has almost disappeared and the concern with the bottom line has shortened the payback horizon to the point that few risks are taken. I have encountered debates in the scientific community that devalue approaches that do not fit the paradigms currently in favor.
I am worried that the invisible hand of the marketplace might not be so wise as many would like to believe. The judgments that make short term sense for stockholders do not make sense for the culture. The peer review referees of scientific journals cannot always see beyond their disciplinary blinders. Many good ideas are orphaned, unheeded in the wilderness. Scientific and technological research are so critical that we cannot afford the premature elimination of these ideas and efforts that do not find favor through traditional channels.
The arts can function as an independent zone of research. They could become the place where abandoned, discredited, and unorthodox inquires could be pursued. They might very well value research according to criteria quite different from those of the commercial and scientific worlds. The roles of artists could incorporate other roles such as researcher, inventor, hacker, and entrepreneur. Even within research labs artist participation in research teams could add a perspective that could help drive the research process. (See my editorial, "Industrial Research Artist" Leonardo, vol 17:no.2 - 1984). Several traditions of the arts uniquely equip them for this function:
Artistic traditions of iconoclasm mean that artists are likely to take up lines of inquiry devalued by others.
The valuing of social commentary means that artists are likely to integrate widely ranging cultural issues in their research.
Artists are more likely to incorporate criteria such as celebration and wonder than commercial enterprizes.
The art's interest in communication means that artists could bring the scientific and technological possibilities to a wider public better than peers in other fields.
Artistic valuing of creativity and innovation meant that new perspectives might be applied to inquiries.
The recent history of the personal computer illustrates the need for this independent research function and the role the arts might serve. Early developers such as Apple Computer founders Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs found little support for their ideas about the personal computer from the companies they worked for. Supervisors signed waivers on the ideas because they could not imagine any market for a desktop computer used by individuals. Similarly, the discipline of computer science was mostly uninterested in software and hardware issues related to these computers. Advances often came from individuals who worked outside traditional academic and business channels. Teenagers became world experts and artists made significant contributions in the development of interface design and image/ sound processing.
Similarly demonstrating the value of art-research cross fertilization , the SIGGRAPH (ACM international organization for computer graphics research) annual meetings have included an art show since their beginnings. These shows have been influential in several ways. Artists have been able to learn about emerging computer graphics research and technologies long before they became products to the extent that they could start experimenting with them. In parallel fashion, researchers have become acquainted with artistic work that pushed the technology in unanticipated directions and offered ideas for new research directions.
If the culture had to rely only on traditional lines of research, we might have had to wait much longer for the developments that have profoundly shaped the last decades. This story potentially could be repeated many times in many other fields of inquiry if alternative venues for research are developed. The arts could well serve this function if artists are prepared to learn the knowledge, language, work styles, self discipline, and information networks that are instrumental in their fields of interest.
Preparing Artist/ Researchers
What must artists do differently than they always have done to prepare to participate in the world of research. They must broaden their definitions of art materials and contexts. They must become curious about scientific and technological research and acquire the skills and knowledge that will allow them to significantly participate in these worlds. (See my article "Research and Development as Source of Ideas and Inspiration for Artists" - Leonardo vol 24:no. 3 1991- for examples of research that could be of interest for artists.) They must expand conventional notions of what constitutes an artistic education. The parameters of the science and technology education required is not yet clear. Can artists find the right mix of objective and subjective processes? Can artists learn enough to engage in research at a non-dilettante level? Scientists and technology researchers who have devoted their entire professional lives to educating themselves about topics being investigated might be sceptical.
At the same time artists must keep alive artistic traditions of iconoclasm, critical perspectives, play, and sensual communication with audiences. They must be willing to undertake art explorations that do not neatly fit in historically validated media and offer their work in new contexts. Here are some concrete steps artists can take to prepare:
Pay attention to discourse about technical and scientific topics in popular and professional media. Develop the ability to penetrate beneath the surface presentation to think about unexplored research directions and unanticipated implications.
Acquire background knowledge and skills related to technological topics either through formal and informal means
Learn about the information sources used by scientists and engineers to learn about emerging fields including academic and professional journals, trade shows, academic meetings, and equipment supply sources Many of the trade magazines are free for validated research practitioners. (Artists can acquire this validation by self-identifying their art investigations as research.)
Learn about relevant on-line information resources such as mailing lists, newsgroups, and Web sites that have become so crucial in scientific communication. (Luckily the growth of the Internet and World Wide Web have made it easier than ever for artists in enter into these information networks.)
Develop new kinds of mutually beneficial collaborations with companies, universities, and other organizations involved in research.
What is a Viable Role for Artists in Research Settings?
The viability of this kind of collaboration is so critical to the future of both art and research that it is worth thinking about in more detail. What can researchers contribute to art and what can artists contribute to research? Why can high tech companies gain from artists being involved?
Much of the most well known collaborations between artists and scientists/engineers do not provide good models. For example, the EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) in the 60's and the LA County Museum collaborations in Art & Technology produced some interesting art but did not profoundly address the role of artists in research. Often the engineers functioned as technical assistants to the artists or the artists dabbled with new technologies.
Better models would provide more mutual benefit. Early examples, include Bell Labs involvement of artists in sound research that was instrumental to telephony, electronic sound, and electronic voice research and electronic music. Also, artist Sonia Sheridan's artist in residency at the 3M research center in the 70's helped influence the development of color copier technology as well as shaping her development of the Generative Systems program at the Art Institute of Chicago that influenced so many artists. More contemporary examples include the artist-in-residency programs initiated by the Xerox PARC research center and Interval research company. These collaborations experimented with mutual definitions of research agendas. The Xerox PARC experience will be described more fully in a book to be published by MIT Press.
Skeptics sometimes wonder what possible contribution artists can make to serious research and development. Artists can augment the research process in several ways. They can define new kinds of research questions, provide unorthodox interpretations of results, point out missed opportunities for development, explore and articulate wide ranging implications of the research, represent potential user perspectives, and help communicate research findings in effective and provocative ways. They can bring centuries of artistic experience to bear on the technological future. They often approach problems in ways quite different than those of scientists and engineers. The critical role of designers and artists in computer human interface research over the last years demonstrates this new model of interdisciplinary research.
Computer Art is Not the Future - New Challenges
Many "high tech" artists believe they have already addressed the future by becoming computer artists who work with digital image, sound, and interactive multimedia. They have made a critical error. They have misunderstood the real significance of artists' work with computers during the last decade and a half. The new media are interesting, but more important is the fact that artists were experimenting with microcomputers at almost the same time that other kinds of developers and researchers were. Artists were not merely using the results of research conducted by others but were actually participating as researchers themselves.
Many new technologies such as genetic microbiology promise to have similar or even greater impact on life and thought. Artists need to actively patrol the frontiers of scientific and technological research to identify future trends that could benefit from the artist/research inquiry. Knowledge of computers and the Internet will be valuable assets because they will be required tools in most areas of research. Artists who think, however, they are in the vanguard because they work will computers may soon find themselves in the backguard. Below I list some areas of scientific inquiry and technological development that I believe may have cultural impact and will be fruitful areas for artistic inquiry. This diverse idiosyncratic list is by no means exhaustive and identification of other areas of interest should be considered an important artistic activity of our era:
New biology
Extra-sensory phenomena
Animal Consciousness
Brain physiology
Medical technology
Touch, Taste, and Smell research
Biosensors
Artificial life
Alternative Energy
Materials science
Cosmology
Non visual astronomy
Space science
Artificial Intelligence
Hypermedia Robotics
Gesture recognition
Speech recognition & synthesis
Wearable computing
Information visualization
Groupware
Computer-Telephone Integration
Inspectable movies
Virtual Reality
Ubiquitous Computing
Surveillance & remote sensing
Bar codes and auto ID
GPS (geographic locating systems)
Intelligent home
Intelligent hi-way
The Integration of Research and Art
Research is shaping the future in profound ways beyond the utilitarian confines of the technology produced. Our culture desperately needs wide involvement in the definition of research agendas, the actual investigation processes, and in the exploration of the implications of what is discovered. Artists can contribute significantly to this discourse by developing a new kind of artist/researcher role.
The appropriate contours of this involvement are not yet defined. Much experimentation is required. How can research settings learn to be open enough to benefit from the unorthodox contributions artists might make? How can artists learn to involve themselves in the ways and byways of researchers without losing touch with their artistic roots. (Many of the best young artists I had as students who became involved as researchers ultimately ended up being seduced by the recognition and economic rewards of research that they quit functioning as artists.) Also scientific inquiry and technology development are not identical processes; what kind of involvement in each might artists fashion for themselves
I am not claiming that artists should act exactly like researchers. If they did, they would be unlikely to make any unique contribution. Contemporary art often includes elements of commentary, irony and critique missing from "serious" research. Similarly scientists and technologists strive toward objectivity; artists cultivate their idiosyncratic subjectivity as a major feature of what they do. The "research" that artists created will most likely look different than that produced by traditional researchers. It would work like art always does - provoking and moving audiences through its communicative power and unique perspectives. Still it might simultaneously work as research - using systematic investigative processes to develop new technological possibilities or to discover useful new knowledge or perspectives.
Maybe the segmented categorization of artist and researcher will itself prove to be a historical anachronism; maybe new kinds of integrated roles will develop. Signs of this happening already appear. Some of the hackers who pioneered microcomputer developments may one day be seen as artists because of their intensity and their culturally revolutionary views and work. Similarly some art shows such as Ars Electronica now define research ideas as core themes (for example, artificial life) and invite researchers along with artists as key presenters. Research has radically altered our culture and will continue to do so. Art must be an essential part of this process.
Artistic Research
Nowadays, advanced art education is in the process of developing research programs throughout Europe. The project 'Artistic Research' will delve into the question of that research and also investigate related subject matters. After all, research as such is often understood as a method stemming from the alpha, beta, and gamma sciences directed towards knowledge production and the development of a certain scientific domain. How is artistic research connected with those types of scientific research, taking into account that the artistic domain so far has tended to continually exceed the modernistic parameters of knowledge management? One could claim that the artistic field comprises the hermeneutic questions of the humanities,the experimental method of the sciences, and the societal commitment of the social sciences. Will that knowledge influence the domain, the methodology, and the outcome of 'artistic research'? Another main topic concerns not only the specificity of the object of knowledge of 'artistic research' but above all whether and how 'artistic research' and its institutional programs will influence
topical visual art, its artworks and its exhibitions.
topical visual art, its artworks and its exhibitions.
Bridging the Gap
between Art and Science
Notes by cognitive scientist, poet and historian Piero Scaruffi
for a round table moderated by Leonard Shlain at Swissnex in San Francisco on 19/9/2007
Art Science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is art? This is a question that depends on the country and the age in which you live. Art for the Romans was simply praise of the state via engineering. Art for the Greeks was the science of abstract harmony, i.e. a form of geometry and mathematics. Art for the Chinese was the practice of harmony with nature. Art in all religions tend to be a manifestation and reenaction of legends. What they all have in common is a) the aspiration to inspire, b) the aim for a higher truth, c) the use of some technology. The psychological effect can be quite different though, ranging from sheer awe to tender melancholy. The psychological state does not define art, per se. The fact that art creates a psychological state may define art, though. To some extent, every human activity is a form of art. Then we have to decide to what degree it is "artistic". Every human action can be viewed as a divine act of creation: with every action the human mind tries to recreate the world in her/his image. Art is the recreation of the world in human image. Each mind does it differently because each mind is different. Needless to say, the existence of millions of different views of the world would make life very difficult. So society has actually evolved away from the arts and towards a uniform view of the world. Children have a very hard time abandoning their egocentric view of the world. Society forces them, and keeps forcing daily every adult, to accept a universal view of the world that we can share and use. No wonder that we have separated the arts from the sciences: the arts are an obstacle to that process of coexistence. Art is the process of creating a very personal view of the world. Science is the process of creating a very impersonal view of the world. The latter has helped create more and more complex forms of society. The price it had to pay was to marginalize and imprison the arts.
Is art a uniquely human activity? The question is misleading. Art is ubiquitous in nature, whether an alpine lake or a spider web. The real question is: do other animals perceive what they do as art? We assume that an alpine lake or the mountain ridges that create it do nto perceive themselves, therefore they are not "artists". Can a spider appreciate the quality of the web it has just woven? Can a beaver appreciate the quality of the "dam" that it has just built across a creek? To us they often look like great art. The main difference between human art and animal art is the intention: hmans meant to create art, whether practical or not, whereas presumably other animals simply do what is practical to do. Whether animals can perceive beauty or not, their activities are "artistic" too, to some extent. Thus in the end art is simply a different name for... life.
Why do humans engage in artistic activities? If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or if the development of the individual from childhood to adulthood mirrors the progression of the human species through ancestral stages, then children hold the answer. Children play. Most adults stop playing because they have to work in order to feed their families. Art might be a way to keep playing while you are working. Children are genetically programmed to play, and playing might be a way to learn the environment and to be creative about it. Humans may just be genetically programmed to be creative. Art might just be a way to map the environment in a creative way. being creative about interacting with the environment yields several evolutionary advantages: 1. you learn more about the environment, 2. you simulate a variety of strategies, 3. you are better prepared to cope with frequently changing conditions. Mapping the territory is a precondition for surviving its challenges, but it wouldn't be enough to yield solutions to unpredictable problems. To deal with the unpredictable, we need more than just a map. over the centuries this continuous training in creativity has led to the creation of entire civilizations (science, technology, engineering). And to the history of art.
What is the impact on society of art? Art educates people to be creative. A lack of creativity is a handicap for science. Science creates new paradigms of thought. Resistance to new paradigms of thought is a handicap for art. Every new generation is more similar to specialized robots than to sentient beings.
What is the relationship between art and science? If every human activity is, to some extent, "artistic", then any scientific discipline is an art. The fictitious separation of art and technology/engineering/science is a recent phenomenon. It was not obvious to the Sumerians that the ziggurat was only art, or to the Egyptians that the pyramid was only art, or to the Romans that the equestrian statue was only art. They had, first and foremost, a practical purpose. Given that purpose, a technology was employed to achieve it. Art and science are so distant in the 21st century because we live in the age of specialization. Specialization started in the Middle Ages and picked up speed with the Industrial Revolution. Specialization is, quite simply, a very efficient way to organize society. Therefore specializations multiplied. Today we are not only keeping art and science separated: we are maintaining countless specializations within the arts and within the sciences.
What are the benefits for science of an integration with the arts? Art can help usher in a paradigm shift. Major scientific revolutions have usually coincided with major artistic periods. Today science is evolution, not revolution, perhaps because it has been decoupled from the arts.
What is the impediment to art/science integration today? Dogmas rule. If we don't comply with the ruling dogmas, we are not accepted. A history of jazz music written by a rock historian is accepted neither by the rock establishment nor by the jazz establishment. It doesn't exist. We don't exist. Furthermore, the 20th century disliked multifaceted ("renaissance") artists/scientists. In Italy, the homeland of art and science integration, ordinary people dismiss artists-scientists as "tuttologhi". Also, the language of science has become more and more difficult.
What are the consequences of the separation of art and science? They are subtle but widespread. For example, environmental fundamentalists oppose any alteration of Nature. Implicitly, they assume that humans cannot improve over Nature. This idea would have been considered ridiculous in ancient times, when human alterations of Nature were almost always considered as positive improvements to the landscape. Even the staunchest environmentalists would probably refrain from destroying the pyramids or the ziggurats or the Acropolis of Athens to restore the stones to the mountains where they were taken, and would probably refrain from demolishing Michelangelo's statues to return the marble to Carrara's mountain. However, the environmental fundamentalist of the 21st century assumes that Nature is the supreme artist, and humans should not alter whatever Nature has produced. If Michelangelo and Leonardo were reborn today and submitted a plan to build a fantastic freeway through a national park, they would be impaled. (Ironically, the same environmental fundamentalists who oppose bridges and tunnels take pictures precisely of bridges and tunnels when they travel to Switzerland). This was clearly not the case centuries ago, when great minds were asked specifically to alter the environment. What has changed is the view that human work is beautiful. The demise of this view is a consequence of having decoupled art and science. The 21st century does not perceive a product of science/technology/engineering as beautiful. It perceives it as a threat to (natural) beauty.
What is the relationship between creativity and progress? It should be obvious: technology does not exist in a vacuum. A system that does not encourage poetry, music, painting, sculpture and so forth does not encourage discovery and invention.
What caused the separation of art and science? It was part of a broader trend away from unification and towards specialization. Not only did science and art progressively move apart, but disciplines within each kept moving apart from each other (for example, each scientific discipline became more and more specialized). A continuum of knowledge and of human activity was broken down into a set of discrete units, each neatly separated from its neighbors. This happened for a simple reason: it worked. Humans were able to build large-scale societies thanks to the partitioning of labor and of knowledge. As knowledge grew, it would have been impossible to maintain the same continuum of knowledge. It was feasible, on the other hand, to muster the increasing amount of knowledge once it was broken down into discrete units and handed down to "specialists". The gap between art and science, and the gaps between all artistic and scientific disciplines, kept increasing for the simple reason that the discrete space of specialized disciplines was more manageable than the old continuum of total knowledge. The digital age is providing us with an opportunity to rebuild the continuum: the world-wide web, digital media, tramsportation have enabled an unprecedented degree of exchange, interaction, integration, convergence and blending. After so many centuries, we are finally able again to see the continuum and not just the discrete space. The new continuum, though, bears little resemblance to the old one, in that its context is a knowledge-intensive society that is the exact opposite of the knowledge-deprived society of the ancient continuum.
What can we do to raise a generation of Leonardos? As far as the Western world is concerned, I am pessimistic. It would require a fundamental change in the structure of society, which is unlikely to come from the very Western society that invented (and prospered thanks to) the society of specializations. The societies of the developing world, who are not burdened with the bureaucracy, stereotypes, habits and prejudices that permeate the Western mind, may have a chance to invent the foundations for a wide-spread integration of the arts and the sciences. In the West the only successful programs are the ones that can be identified with a "career path" (whether in the industry or the academia). In the digital age some such career paths are emerging (for example, in the graphic-design industry) and may eventually create the need for interdisciplinary "polytechnics" that teach both art and science. Today the problem is not only that the Academia does not encourage such interdisciplinary programs, but that it discourages it tout court. Very few Departments of Physics, for example, would hire an artist. There is literally no motivation to try that avenue (as opposed to study climate change, for which there are abundant funds and plenty of media attention). One way to reverse this trend would be for a patron of the arts and/or sciences to institute the equivalent of the Nobel prize to reward creative minds that operate in both the arts and the sciences. As far as developing countries go, they should realize that they can overtake the West only if they manage to introduce a paradigm shift, not if they simply replicate the Western model. And a paradigm shift requires precisely the kind of imagination and creativity that is penalized by the Western society of specialization. That paradigm shift requires a hyper-interdisciplinary approach. After all, the paradigm shift that turned Europe from a continent of plagues, starvation and endemic warfare into the rulers of the world started precisely during the Rinascimento.
Notes by cognitive scientist, poet and historian Piero Scaruffi
for a round table moderated by Leonard Shlain at Swissnex in San Francisco on 19/9/2007
Art Science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is art? This is a question that depends on the country and the age in which you live. Art for the Romans was simply praise of the state via engineering. Art for the Greeks was the science of abstract harmony, i.e. a form of geometry and mathematics. Art for the Chinese was the practice of harmony with nature. Art in all religions tend to be a manifestation and reenaction of legends. What they all have in common is a) the aspiration to inspire, b) the aim for a higher truth, c) the use of some technology. The psychological effect can be quite different though, ranging from sheer awe to tender melancholy. The psychological state does not define art, per se. The fact that art creates a psychological state may define art, though. To some extent, every human activity is a form of art. Then we have to decide to what degree it is "artistic". Every human action can be viewed as a divine act of creation: with every action the human mind tries to recreate the world in her/his image. Art is the recreation of the world in human image. Each mind does it differently because each mind is different. Needless to say, the existence of millions of different views of the world would make life very difficult. So society has actually evolved away from the arts and towards a uniform view of the world. Children have a very hard time abandoning their egocentric view of the world. Society forces them, and keeps forcing daily every adult, to accept a universal view of the world that we can share and use. No wonder that we have separated the arts from the sciences: the arts are an obstacle to that process of coexistence. Art is the process of creating a very personal view of the world. Science is the process of creating a very impersonal view of the world. The latter has helped create more and more complex forms of society. The price it had to pay was to marginalize and imprison the arts.
Is art a uniquely human activity? The question is misleading. Art is ubiquitous in nature, whether an alpine lake or a spider web. The real question is: do other animals perceive what they do as art? We assume that an alpine lake or the mountain ridges that create it do nto perceive themselves, therefore they are not "artists". Can a spider appreciate the quality of the web it has just woven? Can a beaver appreciate the quality of the "dam" that it has just built across a creek? To us they often look like great art. The main difference between human art and animal art is the intention: hmans meant to create art, whether practical or not, whereas presumably other animals simply do what is practical to do. Whether animals can perceive beauty or not, their activities are "artistic" too, to some extent. Thus in the end art is simply a different name for... life.
Why do humans engage in artistic activities? If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or if the development of the individual from childhood to adulthood mirrors the progression of the human species through ancestral stages, then children hold the answer. Children play. Most adults stop playing because they have to work in order to feed their families. Art might be a way to keep playing while you are working. Children are genetically programmed to play, and playing might be a way to learn the environment and to be creative about it. Humans may just be genetically programmed to be creative. Art might just be a way to map the environment in a creative way. being creative about interacting with the environment yields several evolutionary advantages: 1. you learn more about the environment, 2. you simulate a variety of strategies, 3. you are better prepared to cope with frequently changing conditions. Mapping the territory is a precondition for surviving its challenges, but it wouldn't be enough to yield solutions to unpredictable problems. To deal with the unpredictable, we need more than just a map. over the centuries this continuous training in creativity has led to the creation of entire civilizations (science, technology, engineering). And to the history of art.
What is the impact on society of art? Art educates people to be creative. A lack of creativity is a handicap for science. Science creates new paradigms of thought. Resistance to new paradigms of thought is a handicap for art. Every new generation is more similar to specialized robots than to sentient beings.
What is the relationship between art and science? If every human activity is, to some extent, "artistic", then any scientific discipline is an art. The fictitious separation of art and technology/engineering/science is a recent phenomenon. It was not obvious to the Sumerians that the ziggurat was only art, or to the Egyptians that the pyramid was only art, or to the Romans that the equestrian statue was only art. They had, first and foremost, a practical purpose. Given that purpose, a technology was employed to achieve it. Art and science are so distant in the 21st century because we live in the age of specialization. Specialization started in the Middle Ages and picked up speed with the Industrial Revolution. Specialization is, quite simply, a very efficient way to organize society. Therefore specializations multiplied. Today we are not only keeping art and science separated: we are maintaining countless specializations within the arts and within the sciences.
What are the benefits for science of an integration with the arts? Art can help usher in a paradigm shift. Major scientific revolutions have usually coincided with major artistic periods. Today science is evolution, not revolution, perhaps because it has been decoupled from the arts.
What is the impediment to art/science integration today? Dogmas rule. If we don't comply with the ruling dogmas, we are not accepted. A history of jazz music written by a rock historian is accepted neither by the rock establishment nor by the jazz establishment. It doesn't exist. We don't exist. Furthermore, the 20th century disliked multifaceted ("renaissance") artists/scientists. In Italy, the homeland of art and science integration, ordinary people dismiss artists-scientists as "tuttologhi". Also, the language of science has become more and more difficult.
What are the consequences of the separation of art and science? They are subtle but widespread. For example, environmental fundamentalists oppose any alteration of Nature. Implicitly, they assume that humans cannot improve over Nature. This idea would have been considered ridiculous in ancient times, when human alterations of Nature were almost always considered as positive improvements to the landscape. Even the staunchest environmentalists would probably refrain from destroying the pyramids or the ziggurats or the Acropolis of Athens to restore the stones to the mountains where they were taken, and would probably refrain from demolishing Michelangelo's statues to return the marble to Carrara's mountain. However, the environmental fundamentalist of the 21st century assumes that Nature is the supreme artist, and humans should not alter whatever Nature has produced. If Michelangelo and Leonardo were reborn today and submitted a plan to build a fantastic freeway through a national park, they would be impaled. (Ironically, the same environmental fundamentalists who oppose bridges and tunnels take pictures precisely of bridges and tunnels when they travel to Switzerland). This was clearly not the case centuries ago, when great minds were asked specifically to alter the environment. What has changed is the view that human work is beautiful. The demise of this view is a consequence of having decoupled art and science. The 21st century does not perceive a product of science/technology/engineering as beautiful. It perceives it as a threat to (natural) beauty.
What is the relationship between creativity and progress? It should be obvious: technology does not exist in a vacuum. A system that does not encourage poetry, music, painting, sculpture and so forth does not encourage discovery and invention.
What caused the separation of art and science? It was part of a broader trend away from unification and towards specialization. Not only did science and art progressively move apart, but disciplines within each kept moving apart from each other (for example, each scientific discipline became more and more specialized). A continuum of knowledge and of human activity was broken down into a set of discrete units, each neatly separated from its neighbors. This happened for a simple reason: it worked. Humans were able to build large-scale societies thanks to the partitioning of labor and of knowledge. As knowledge grew, it would have been impossible to maintain the same continuum of knowledge. It was feasible, on the other hand, to muster the increasing amount of knowledge once it was broken down into discrete units and handed down to "specialists". The gap between art and science, and the gaps between all artistic and scientific disciplines, kept increasing for the simple reason that the discrete space of specialized disciplines was more manageable than the old continuum of total knowledge. The digital age is providing us with an opportunity to rebuild the continuum: the world-wide web, digital media, tramsportation have enabled an unprecedented degree of exchange, interaction, integration, convergence and blending. After so many centuries, we are finally able again to see the continuum and not just the discrete space. The new continuum, though, bears little resemblance to the old one, in that its context is a knowledge-intensive society that is the exact opposite of the knowledge-deprived society of the ancient continuum.
What can we do to raise a generation of Leonardos? As far as the Western world is concerned, I am pessimistic. It would require a fundamental change in the structure of society, which is unlikely to come from the very Western society that invented (and prospered thanks to) the society of specializations. The societies of the developing world, who are not burdened with the bureaucracy, stereotypes, habits and prejudices that permeate the Western mind, may have a chance to invent the foundations for a wide-spread integration of the arts and the sciences. In the West the only successful programs are the ones that can be identified with a "career path" (whether in the industry or the academia). In the digital age some such career paths are emerging (for example, in the graphic-design industry) and may eventually create the need for interdisciplinary "polytechnics" that teach both art and science. Today the problem is not only that the Academia does not encourage such interdisciplinary programs, but that it discourages it tout court. Very few Departments of Physics, for example, would hire an artist. There is literally no motivation to try that avenue (as opposed to study climate change, for which there are abundant funds and plenty of media attention). One way to reverse this trend would be for a patron of the arts and/or sciences to institute the equivalent of the Nobel prize to reward creative minds that operate in both the arts and the sciences. As far as developing countries go, they should realize that they can overtake the West only if they manage to introduce a paradigm shift, not if they simply replicate the Western model. And a paradigm shift requires precisely the kind of imagination and creativity that is penalized by the Western society of specialization. That paradigm shift requires a hyper-interdisciplinary approach. After all, the paradigm shift that turned Europe from a continent of plagues, starvation and endemic warfare into the rulers of the world started precisely during the Rinascimento.
“Dynamic Equilibrium”
explores the intersection of art and science.
Mandeville Gallery’s newest exhibit
http://www.union.edu/N/DS/s.php?s=8310
Mandeville Gallery’s newest exhibit
http://www.union.edu/N/DS/s.php?s=8310
October 6, 2009
Autumn Congress
Belgian Hand Group & Belgian Hand Therapists
Welcome
We would like to welcome all of you to our autumn meeting in Antwerp on the 14th of November 2009. Focus will be on nerve injuries in the upper extremity, a challenge for everyone involved in the treatment of upper limb injuries. State of the art didactic lectures by national and international experts will highlight diagnosis and treatment options. Novel techniques, such as nerve transfer and nerve conduits will be proposed and there will be ample time for case-based discussions. We hope you will join us.
Date: Saturday, 14 November 2009
Venue: Aula Bank J.Van Breda & C°, Ledeganckkaai 7, 2000 Antwerp
Free parking available.
Route description: www.mappy.be
Administrative Organization: King Conventions, Semico Group, Korte Meer 18, 9000 Gent
Tel: +32 (0)9 235 22 95
Fax: +32 (0)9 233 85 97
congres@hand.be
www.hand.be
Final Programme
08h55-09h00 Welcome
Frederik Verstreken
09h00 – 10h45 Diagnosis
Moderators: Chantal Robert and Geoffroy Van de Putte
09h00 Nerve repair: essential pathophysiologic data
Wim Vanhove, Ghent
09h15 Clinical examination
Luc De Smet, Leuven
09h30 Imaging of nerve injuries
Jan Gielen, Antwerp
09h45 Utility of electrophysiological studies in assessing
peripheral nerve involvement after trauma in the
upper limb
Michel Goossens, Brussels
10h00 Difficulties in diagnosis of closed lesions
Rolfe Birch, London, UK
10h30 Questions and discussion
10h45 Coffee Break
11h15 – 13h00 Treatment
Moderators: Tom Lattré and Olivier Barbier
11h15 Primary nerve repair: indications, techniques, results …
Jeroen Van Haecke, Kortrijk
11h30 Fractures associated with nerve palsy: current concepts
Roger van Riet, Antwerp
11h45 My experience and philosophy on nerve repair
Hanno Millesi, Vienna, Austria
12h15 Neurolysis
Alain Carlier, Liège
12h30 Rehabilitation following nerve repair
Katleen Meeus, Heist op den Berg
12h45 Questions and discussion
13h00 Lunch
14h00 – 15h30 Reconstruction
Moderators: Marie Pételet and Peter Dreessen
14h00 Artificial nerve guides
Marcel Meek, Groningen, The Netherlands
14h30 Nerve grafting or neurotisation?
Jörg Bahm, Aachen, Germany
14h45 Tendon transfers
Danny Vandenberghe, Antwerp
15h00 Final Station: the pain clinic
Guy Hans, Antwerp
15h15 Questions and discussion
15h30 Coffee Break
16h00 – 17h00 Selected Free Papers
Moderators: Karel Verhaeghe and Frederik Verstreken
16h00 Nerve transfer for deltoid paralysis: case report
N. Van Meir, I. Degreef, P. Debeer, and L. De Smet,
Leuven
16h10 3D computerized model for measuring strain and
displacement of the brachial plexus following placement
of reverse shoulder prosthesis
T. Van Hoof, G.T. Gomes, E. Audenaert, K. Verstraete,
I. Kerckaert and K. D’Herde, Ghent
16h20 Sensory dysfunctions of the hand after repair of a
complete median nerve section
X. Libouton, O. Barbier, L. Plaghki and J.-L. Thonnard,
Brussels
16h30 Autonomic dysfunctions of the hand following
median or ulnar nerve lesions
A.C.J. Ruijs and O. Barbier, Brussels
16h40 Questions and discussion
17h00 Closing
Registration Fees
Early registration
Late registration from 7/11/2009
o Member Belgian Hand Group 70 euro 95 euro
o Member Belgian Hand Therapists 40 euro 65 euro
o Medical doctor 80 euro 105 euro
o Physiotherapists 50 euro 75 euro
o Students and residents 35 euro 60 euro
Registration by the enclosed form or on-line at www.hand.be
Early registration is advised, as access to the auditorium is
limited to 80 persons.
Accreditation is being sought.
Welcome
We would like to welcome all of you to our autumn meeting in Antwerp on the 14th of November 2009. Focus will be on nerve injuries in the upper extremity, a challenge for everyone involved in the treatment of upper limb injuries. State of the art didactic lectures by national and international experts will highlight diagnosis and treatment options. Novel techniques, such as nerve transfer and nerve conduits will be proposed and there will be ample time for case-based discussions. We hope you will join us.
Date: Saturday, 14 November 2009
Venue: Aula Bank J.Van Breda & C°, Ledeganckkaai 7, 2000 Antwerp
Free parking available.
Route description: www.mappy.be
Administrative Organization: King Conventions, Semico Group, Korte Meer 18, 9000 Gent
Tel: +32 (0)9 235 22 95
Fax: +32 (0)9 233 85 97
congres@hand.be
www.hand.be
Final Programme
08h55-09h00 Welcome
Frederik Verstreken
09h00 – 10h45 Diagnosis
Moderators: Chantal Robert and Geoffroy Van de Putte
09h00 Nerve repair: essential pathophysiologic data
Wim Vanhove, Ghent
09h15 Clinical examination
Luc De Smet, Leuven
09h30 Imaging of nerve injuries
Jan Gielen, Antwerp
09h45 Utility of electrophysiological studies in assessing
peripheral nerve involvement after trauma in the
upper limb
Michel Goossens, Brussels
10h00 Difficulties in diagnosis of closed lesions
Rolfe Birch, London, UK
10h30 Questions and discussion
10h45 Coffee Break
11h15 – 13h00 Treatment
Moderators: Tom Lattré and Olivier Barbier
11h15 Primary nerve repair: indications, techniques, results …
Jeroen Van Haecke, Kortrijk
11h30 Fractures associated with nerve palsy: current concepts
Roger van Riet, Antwerp
11h45 My experience and philosophy on nerve repair
Hanno Millesi, Vienna, Austria
12h15 Neurolysis
Alain Carlier, Liège
12h30 Rehabilitation following nerve repair
Katleen Meeus, Heist op den Berg
12h45 Questions and discussion
13h00 Lunch
14h00 – 15h30 Reconstruction
Moderators: Marie Pételet and Peter Dreessen
14h00 Artificial nerve guides
Marcel Meek, Groningen, The Netherlands
14h30 Nerve grafting or neurotisation?
Jörg Bahm, Aachen, Germany
14h45 Tendon transfers
Danny Vandenberghe, Antwerp
15h00 Final Station: the pain clinic
Guy Hans, Antwerp
15h15 Questions and discussion
15h30 Coffee Break
16h00 – 17h00 Selected Free Papers
Moderators: Karel Verhaeghe and Frederik Verstreken
16h00 Nerve transfer for deltoid paralysis: case report
N. Van Meir, I. Degreef, P. Debeer, and L. De Smet,
Leuven
16h10 3D computerized model for measuring strain and
displacement of the brachial plexus following placement
of reverse shoulder prosthesis
T. Van Hoof, G.T. Gomes, E. Audenaert, K. Verstraete,
I. Kerckaert and K. D’Herde, Ghent
16h20 Sensory dysfunctions of the hand after repair of a
complete median nerve section
X. Libouton, O. Barbier, L. Plaghki and J.-L. Thonnard,
Brussels
16h30 Autonomic dysfunctions of the hand following
median or ulnar nerve lesions
A.C.J. Ruijs and O. Barbier, Brussels
16h40 Questions and discussion
17h00 Closing
Registration Fees
Early registration
Late registration from 7/11/2009
o Member Belgian Hand Group 70 euro 95 euro
o Member Belgian Hand Therapists 40 euro 65 euro
o Medical doctor 80 euro 105 euro
o Physiotherapists 50 euro 75 euro
o Students and residents 35 euro 60 euro
Registration by the enclosed form or on-line at www.hand.be
Early registration is advised, as access to the auditorium is
limited to 80 persons.
Accreditation is being sought.
October 1, 2009
Wetenschap en verwondering
01.10.2009
http://www.klara.be/cm/klara/1.104-searcharticle?directarticle=1.85091&article=1.85091
Romantiek en wetenschap lijken twee onverzoenbare tegenpolen. Het ideaal van de subjectiviteit radicaal tegengesteld aan de objectiviteit van de wetenschap. In zijn meeslepende studie 'De tijd van verwondering' laat Richard Holmes zien hoe fout dat idee wel is. Hij beschrijft hoe poëzie en wetenschap tussen 1770 en 1830 samenwerkten, waarbij vonken ontstonden die tot vandaag voelbaar zijn.
Geerdt Magiels las het boek en vertelt er meer over in Mezzo.
['De tijd van verwondering', Richard Holmes. Uitgegeven bij Contact 2009]
http://www.klara.be/cm/klara/1.104-searcharticle?directarticle=1.85091&article=1.85091
Romantiek en wetenschap lijken twee onverzoenbare tegenpolen. Het ideaal van de subjectiviteit radicaal tegengesteld aan de objectiviteit van de wetenschap. In zijn meeslepende studie 'De tijd van verwondering' laat Richard Holmes zien hoe fout dat idee wel is. Hij beschrijft hoe poëzie en wetenschap tussen 1770 en 1830 samenwerkten, waarbij vonken ontstonden die tot vandaag voelbaar zijn.
Geerdt Magiels las het boek en vertelt er meer over in Mezzo.
['De tijd van verwondering', Richard Holmes. Uitgegeven bij Contact 2009]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
