Hi All,
I think "we need new ideas of how art-science and science-art projects
should be presented to new publics".
The media art term seems to becoming less and less meaningful to the people
engaged in interdisciplinary activity. There is a generation of creative
people developing who don't care about the artworld, or galleries, they use
other means to communicate creatively.
To me artists working in the interdisciplinary area are a part of a living,
dynamic culture and do not fit well into the current gallery/exhibition
model. The problem is that we seem to confuse galleries and exhibiting
artwork with cultural activity. Galleries are a symptom of culture and not
the culture itself. I recently asked the question " if our daily lives
engage continually with artistic expression, do we in a modern western
society have the capacity to recognise such a creative culture as art?" I
would think probably not at the moment, but from working at ANAT it seems
much more valuable to the artist and society to have artists practicing in
research labs than to have work in a gallery.
What spaces will be the environments in which to have an arts experience?
Will we know we are having an arts experience?
Do we need to know that we are having an art experience?
We should seriously look at the exhibition model for this type of work.
To follow up on Rogerıs point about science verses art: Interdisciplinary
research is one of the most useful ways to look at ³wicked problems² and
art/science research is a true success stories of interdisciplinary
practice.
And following up on some points by Lindsay: I find that the relationship
between artists and scientists are much less ideological in practice, they
both enjoy the intellectual journey and no one seems to be imposing a system
on anyone, but we are also careful in how we set up these partnerships (it
is getting easier though).
I think a PhD should be able to be done in a residency, but most people are
probably thankful that I donıt run a university. But the amateurism point
is very real in this respect. We are growing the capacity for sophisticated
scientific and cultural practices to develop outside of academic regimes,
outside of the artworld and professional scientific communities. Do we
integrate this or keep it on the outer? I think it is exciting, but at the
same time I donıt know if I want someone doing genetic engineering in their
shed.
Gavin Artz
CEO
Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT)
ph: 61 8 8231 9037
http://www.anat.org.au
ANAT: Celebrating a generation of innovation [1988-2009]
ANAT is supported by the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of
the Australian, State and Territory Governments; the Australian Government
through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body, and the
South Australian Government through Arts SA.
On 4/11/09 5:21 AM, "roger malina" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks
>
>
> it would be good to have some more scientists on this list
> speak up !!
>
> as a scientist ( physics, astronomy) i would like to inject that
> the scientific method itself evolves in terms of what kinds of
> "explanations" are considered testable/robust/falsifiable
>
> for instance in some sciences, particularly where non linear
> complex phenomena predominate, computer simulations have taken on the
> status of hypotheses- ie you build a simulation of climate change=
> you compare the simulation with historical data= when there is a
> good fit, you propose it as an explanation with predictive capacities
> ( and then convince governments to act)
>
> this is quite different from a mathematical equation that is proposed
> as a 'compact' description of the world with predictive
> robustness/testability
> ( E=MC2)=most people have this kind of scientific explanation in mind
> when they talk of science
>
> I guess the part of scientism that i would personally subscribe to is that
> there is a world that exists independent of human cognitive apparatus=
> the problem is how that cognitive apparatus develops
> testable/robust/falsifiable
> descriptions that have predictive abilities and this is a very messy process
> ( non scientific) where art science interfaces have a historical track
> record
>
> the ideas that we have about the world are very tied to our brain
> structures,
> cognitive capacities, the language structures (such as ontologies) that we
> project on the world= so the historical development of scientific
> explanations
> is one that reflects our cultural embedness
>
> i also think the art vs science debate is sterile at this point- as someone
> pointed out - when dealing with an urgent problem like climate change and
> how to change our societies so that we will survive, its all hands on deck,
> art and science together
>
> an interesting question for the curators on this list is what is really the
> best way to present art-science and science-art to interested publics ?
>
> the dublin gallery is one new type of model of an art gallery within a
> science institution ( UCLA also has a gallery within the nano science
> institute
> ZKM for a while has a scientific research team within a cultural insitution)
>
> should we be showing art-science and science-art within the new media ghetto
> that is trying to get accredited by the commercial/museum/academic world or
> do
> we need new ideas of how art-science and science=art projects should be
> presented to new publics, in what contexts, how
>
> i feel like the token scientist on this list !! it would be great to have
> other
> scientists post !!
>
> roger malina
|
