Hope you will forgive a minor grump, but I want to raise an
issue without writing a full response.
"So, could it be that we are being short sighted about the canons we
are examining (media, fine art, science), and missing debates which
might be useful to us? Are there more examples of disciplines which
work around the art/science blockage?"
This month's theme interests me mightily. Travels have kept me
Here, though, I want to suggest that the notion of an "art/science
blockage" strikes me as a cliche. There may be individuals who belong
to a group of artists or scientists that cannot communicate between
and among fields, but this is their fault as human beings. It is not the
fault of "art" or the fault of "science."
IMHO, the idea of "art/science blockage" is one of those mythic --
or cliched -- notions that does not hold up under scrutiny. I understand
the problem to which you refer, but this a problem either of artists
or of scientists, not of the fields of art or science. More important, it
is generally the problem of individuals who look toward art or science
from a deficient perspective and background.
As someone who works in more than one field, I'll suggest that there
are multiple and plural approaches. The first step is to give up the
notion of a blockage, of Snow's two cultures, and so on. I'd feel much
better with a note reading,
"So, could we find a visionary approach to the canons we
examine in media, fine art, and science? Are we missing
and useful debates? Are there more examples of disciplines
which work effectively across the boundaries of the several
arts and sciences?"
I'll try to offer a few examples when I have time to write a cogent
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School
Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
Staffordshire University (Visiting)
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]