Hello List

As an independent artist researcher working within a University that is
very much led by scientific research, I have found that my approach
toward my own PhD and work is being enhanced by the problems that my
study has encountered within this more 'scientific' framework. I feel
that it has given me the opportunity to study world-views, funding and
corporate pressures and outputs, that under a different system I would
not be aware of. However in saying this I don't feel that I am a servant
to science and do also not believe that the past (funding) decisions of
art to simply illustrate science are the way forward. It was not so long
ago in Newtonian times that the gaps between scientific knowledge were
'gaps of God', and as stated in a previous mail from Tom, scientific
knowledge is and can only be hypothesis as we have no way of knowing the
absolute truth (Humes paradox). It is only by application that we know
that some of these theories work eg. quantum physics. However these gaps
are not the sole property of science, and it is only a through cross
weaving of methods verifications and outputs strung together by certain
methodologies over time, that science has become the mainstay of
explanation and verification. This brings me to some important points
mentioned in previous mails... 

Gavin, although I am very interested in the fact that 'amateurs' are
being incorporated into some research programmes which plugs up quite
nicely some of these 'gaps of God', this is still done on the basis that
the knowledge that these people produce will be in the manner of
scientific method. In my mind, we as artists should be very wary of
being put into this bracket. Our research HAS to be taken seriously in
its own right, and the knowledge that we produce has to (in the words of
Simeon's mail) 'develop shared modes of enquiry into the big issues;
speculations into the structure of reality and attendant issues of
knowledge, language and science as a way of knowing the world?' This
brings me to the very important point that Armin made at the end of his
mail that 'it does not mean that artists and curators should not engage
with
it (science/art collaboration) but, if possible, on THEIR OWN TERMS and
with a careful approach that checks and selects methodologies, projected
outcomes, etc.' In this light then the the question in Micheal's last
mail of 'can hybrid practices stand up to scientific scrutiny', although
interesting seems to be slightly irrelevant and misses the point. Why
would we want it to? What is more interesting is how individual artists
are proceeding and navigating through this problematic and cross weaving
their own methods into other research to provide that verification of
'quality'. How are artists defining their own practice, subjectivity,
'emergent theories' and methodologies in terms of the research agenda
set by science? In terms of curatorial practice, does that mean then
that artists who work with or within scientific arenas will be taken
more seriously? Focussing the lens back onto science, how (on a day to
day level) are their working practices altered by subjective decisions?

What I feel we also should remember is that in terms of working
processes (of doing, experimenting and observation) both artists and
scientists are equals, it is merely that the outcomes in terms of
quantifiable commercial output that are different. In taking these broad
ideas of process (of doing, experimenting and observation) into the
visual art PhD thesis, what then can the outcome for the final work be?
Can subjectivity and objectivity finally be woven together to provide a
PhD thesis that has the definitive style of outcome yet the potential
subjective vantage points of an artwork? Gavin, would this mean that the
PhD thesis in visual art then could be a residency?

With best wishes, lots of questions and a ball of string
Lindsay



Lindsay Brown
PhD Researcher in Art and Media

DOJCA
Visual
 Research Centre 
University of Dundee

Mobile: (0044) 7845http://www.lindsaybrown.wordpress.com
>>> Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> 11/03/09 7:59 AM >>>
I basically agree with everything Armin has stated - but come to a
slightly
different conclusion.

Should I avoid working with people I disagree with? Is this an ethical
or
ideological question? I guess that depends why I disagree with them.
Currently I cannot imagine ever collaborating with a member of the
National
Front or BNP. The thought is revolting. It would be a huge stretch of my
imagination to collaborate with a right wing Republican (I assume there
are
some who are not right wing). These are disagreements of an ideological
nature and in that sense I am sadly not free of ideological bias myself.

However, I can imagine working with almost any type of scientist, even
if I
disagree with their world view. This is because I like to collaborate
with
people for different reasons. One reason is that I find working with
those
with very different world views challenging and I like to be challenged.
I
don¹t want to always work from my own position. That¹s safe and cosy and
will only encourage me to stay stuck wherever I am.

That said, I do draw a line. I would not work with any scientist who
uses
animals in their experiments. I would not work with a scientist if
funded by
certain corporations and I would not work with a scientist in receipt of
military research related funding. I know that means there is a large
number
of scientists I cannot work with. I like to think these are ethical
reasons
that constrain my activities but I am not sure they are entirely. As I
said,
I am not free of ideological taint.

Simon


Simon Biggs

Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk

Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
CIRCLE research group
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/

[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk



From: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:51:57 +0100
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science
and
Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions

Hi all

the problem is not just instrumentalism but what science studies
scholars call the ideology of science or scientism, the believe that the
results of science are objective, that the 'laws of nature' are
universal and eternal and exist outside society. If an institution or an
individual scientist are wedded to that idea then I cant see how any
self-respecting artist can work with them except as some ethnographer or
social anthropologist of science. Unfortunately most institutions have
scientism built into their belief system so that in any collaboration
the artist would have to submit to a strong apriori decision about the
superiority of science as a system of knowledge to be admitted to the
institution, there is no reconciliation possible between the epistemic
cultures of science and art on that basis.

Furtherly, I am afraid that pure science is not necessarily a remedy
against that ideology of science, it can grow there as well as in a
commercial R&D lab; rather, pure science itself is an ideological
construct to justify certain types of funding, whereas in reality most
science is strongly connected with R&D anyway and empirically speaking,
by far the majority of science is conducted in a commercial R&D context.
Those points are not my 'opinion' but paraphrasing an interview with
philosopher and historian of science Simon Schaffer from Cambridge.

All that does not mean that artists and curators should not engage with
it, but, if possible, on their own terms and with a careful approach
that checks and selects methodologies, projected outcomes, etc.
Otherwise the questions that can be asked are very narrow indeed

best
armin

-- 
thenextlayer software, art, politics http://www.thenextlayer.org


Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered inThe University of Dundee is a registered Scottish charity, No: SC015096