hey Roger and list!
for me the first approach has always been moving this sort of work
into the public arena- working in hospitals, research labs,
engineering, astrophysics, dance, nano tech etc, city wide festivals
that hold free events attended by diverse publics. when i was at ANAT
initially planning the Superhuman events, the driving concept of the
Curatorial Masterclass was to engage with and educate mainstream arts
curators and writers so that this work easily slipps into the public
consciousness, becomes part of common experience and s an expected/
respected form of cultural engagement.
but in hindsight i wonder does "art", passively sitting in major
public gallery contexts, have any immediate lasting impact - i'm
planning to go to the copenhagen climate change shows in december -
how many world decision makers went to openings, sipped wine, had an
awakening experience that challenged them to rethink their
perspectives? or does the exposure to new perspectives subtlety wash
away at a lower level, building to a momentum in society as a whole?
does work that is scientifically rigorous always make the best art?
climate change may hit a fashionable peak, but will curators and
institutions desert it when the next wave of popularity comes along?
currently i'm working on a project which is giving me a new
understanding the importance of moving art~science into small
communities where it is not just an elitist concept, but actually
provides practical applications which enhance everyday life and
address everyday issues - The Avoca Project in regional Victoria,
provides an accessible interface on an intimate, domestic and
community level, as well as to an art audience in a place that is
profoundly affected by climate change issues.. this project is set up
to evolve over 10 years and slowly builds new potentialities and
practicalities involving many fields of art, technology, science and
academic collaborative research.
http://www.avocaproject.org/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=184126442570
many things planned... money to be sought :)
looking fwd to seeing many of you in Melbourne!
warm regards,
Melinda
Melinda Rackham (PhD)
Emerging Artforms Curator
Adjunct Professor of RMIT University
a P.O. Box 1109
North Adelaide
South Australia 5006
e [log in to unmask]
m +61 410 596 592
h +61 8 7127 5037
On 04/11/2009, at 5:21 AM, roger malina 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
|