Hello all,
These arguments seem to get bogged down into one or the other, as though
instrumentalist activity cannot survive with pure enquiry and shared methods
of that enquiry. To me, the bringing together of art and science is the
perfect place to look more broadly at the systems where this collaboration
occurs and use our creativity to redefine ways of working. To date we have
suffered approaches that demand one or the other, but it is possible to
conceive of systems where both can work together. I feel the worst culprits
of this have been universities and government institutions that have timidly
tried (some times not so timidly) commercial activity and missed the point.
Talking to people from Cochler the balance of both is necessary for the
company to survive. The great case study done by the ABCıs Catalyst program
on Wifi <http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm> shows the
instrumental benefits of pure research, but also how not having an awareness
of commercial process through the science can mean researchers, labs and
countries can be ripped off. I would much rather see artists and scientists
benefiting financially from their IP, because I know they will use it to
continue exploring.
Art science collaborations are also taking advantage of cultural shifts
brought about by technology. ANATıs art science residencies rely on our
capacity to contract portals into research environments for what the science
community would consider amateurs. The rise of amateurs due to the
availability of information and equipment will mean the blurring of
established practice delineations. We use commercial contracts to secure a
place for these amateurs in science and it seems transdisciplinary research
is enriched through a fair up front division of IP (i.e. having the
instrumentalist concerns dealt with at the beginning). This is not to say
instrumentalist outcomes are the aim, but it has been addressed if something
was to arise.
For me this raises curatorial issues.
In art science collaborations it seems there is much greater benefit to an
artist career and development to undertake a residency than to exhibit.
Should we be looking beyond the traditional artworld process and defining a
new curatorial conception for this type of art?
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 3/11/09 8:27 AM, "Simeon Nelson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I have been reading with interest and to follow up Simons concern with
> instrumentalism would like to make a couple of points from the perspective
> of an artist who works with scientific ideas and collaborates with
> scientists at a generally lo-tech level. Using the latest technology to my
> mind does not confer a priori cogency or value to an art science
> collaboration or practice. In fact I worry that too much technology can
> swamp the clarity of the enquiry. We need to be clear whether we are talking
> about industry led design/technology collaborations for an instrumental end
> as in the Knowledge Triangle paper link sent by Bronac which seems to
> largely address issues of national prestige and ranking in a sort of global
> technological league table or more autonomous, self-generated (less likely
> to be funded) science art practice and collaborations that are motivated
> purely by wonder, by a restless questioning, that seek new ways of
> apprehending and understanding the world (knowledge, beauty for their own
> sake).
> Is not the real value of science art alliances in the development of 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? Questions that come up in my practice and that i have
> been discussing with other artists, philosophers and scientists include:
> do artists working with scientists on research projects affect the outcome
> of any science being done?
> Could it be said that generally science and the arts are reintegrating,
> realigning into a shared enquiry?
> Can art be a contribution to knowledge? Can science contribute to meaning in
> a way similar to the humanities? What is the nature of discovery in art and
> science? Do scientists discover or invent the laws of nature? Do artists
> discover or invent new ways of seeing the world?
>
> Apologies if this is not entirely germane to this thread but i felt I had to
> make the strongest possible case for art science enquiry unclouded by
> commercial/industry needs. I am not an anti-instrumentalist by the way, I
> think that collaborative metaphysical enquiry between art and science can be
> a very positive thing for humanity and the planet! I am working on an art
> and cosmology conference and summer school in Poland that may be of interest
> when it occurs. A symposium on this topic was co-convened by me last summer
> and a brief outline can be seen at
> http://www.skyway09.eu/program.php?e=04-01
>
> best wishes
>
> Simeon
> Simeon Nelson
> Professor of Sculpture
> Head of Visual Art
> University of Hertfordshire
> www.simeon-nelson.com
>
> on 2/11/09 6:23 PM, Bronac Ferran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> HI
>>
>> Responding again to Simon's prompt, yes - the ACEACE/AHRC Research Art
> and
>> Science Fellowships programme - did try to learn from and build on
> previous
>> UK and other international models including the New Technology Artists
>> Fellowships scheme which was set up by Alan Blackwell of Crucible and
> Lizzie
>> Muller then of the Junction in Cambridge around 2002 and responded also to
>> Steve Wilson's book and the report from the National Academy of Science in
>> the States and the UK Office of Science and Technology report by Emma
>> Rothschild in 2001 which argued that having different educational strands
>> for art and science was anachronistic in this day and age..
>>
>> So we designed a new programme - which also sought to extend the rather
>> limited R&D possibilities available through Wellcome Trust sciart awards -
>> and did quite a lot of work with our partner agency based on what we had
>> learnt to optimise the guidelines rather than starting from scratch
>> ....(however we didn't have any detailed insights into the Australian
>> programmes and it is rather fine to find out now). The story of the
>> programme we ran can be read at
>> http://www.leonardo.info/isast/journal/toc395.html
>>
>> and then yet again building on this we ran a programme of Artists
> Placements
>> in Research and Industry contexts and a report on this (written by a
> social
>> anthropologist from Cambridge who was attached observer) can be viewed at:
>> http://www.interact.mmu.ac.uk/resources/BuildingOnUncommonGrounds
>>
>> The report was also published in a book called (Un)Common Ground (2007)
>> edited by David Garcia, Cathy Brickwood, Tim Puttnam and myself - which
>> looks at different case studies of artists and designers working across
>> sectors and disciplines. More about this at:
>> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Happy to say more about any of this....much of it was inspired also by
> doing
>> the CODE conference in 2001 which yes addressed many art and science
> issues
>> but went quite far beyond
>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/CODE/
>>
>> look forward to hearing more
>>
>> all best
>> Bronac
>>
>>
>>
|