I have enjoyed the debate, but just wanted to add
my two cents worth. I wrote the book Information Arts: Intersections
of Art, Science, and Technology which partially stimulated Jon Katz'
first posting
- The book Information Arts attempts to survey a
great variety of artistic experimentation and theoretical speculation.
It doesn't claim artist interest in science/technology is new or does it
take one position on the science/art split. In fact, since no other comprehensive
survey was available, I was trying to bring into one place examples of
artists and theorists working at that boundary coming from a wide spectrum
of perspectives. I hoped the 1000 pages of examples would be a tool for
thinking more about the issues.
- I know that CP Snow and his "two cultures" theory
has been beaten around over the years. At one point his theory was taken
very seriously and universities ran to add integrated art/science programs.
Then it was decided the split wasn't such a problem. Now its seen as a
problem again. John Brockman wrote a book called the "The Third Culture"
that proposed that current communications and media foment provided another
"culture" outside the old two where there was the possibility of much cross
fertilization.
- This is the activity that I think many postings
were referring to. Electronic media pervade the culture. People from many
fields experiment with it and are interested. People are interested in
new developments. Wired and Slashdot itself are signs of that expanding
interest. Popular culture seems open to influence from all kinds of disciplines.
These are hopeful indicators of the beginnings of dissolving of boundaries.
-Still, my book suggests that it is not as much
of a non-issue as some postings suggest. The enlightenment really did reward
specialization and concentration within disciplines. Sure there were instances
of cross influences all along but the arts and sciences were seen as very
separate. It still continues. By and large the mainstream art world of
museums, curators, art historians, collectors do not accept the active
world of scientific research and technological innovation as central concerns
for the art world. Most art histories see examples such as Leonardo, the
abstracitionists interest in alternative geometries, the Bauhaus, and the
60's EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) as minor footnotes to the
main flow. The museums just recently accepted photography and video as
perhaps art. If an innovation results in something that ends up looking
like media (eg digital imaging) then the museums might now show interest.
Some are trying to figure out how to use the web. Ask them, however, how
interested they are in art based on more speculative research areas such
as genetic engineering, medical imaging, ecological reclammation, space
science, materials science, nanotechnology, telepresence, particle physics,
artificial intelligence, body sensing and the like and you are likely to
get blank stares.
- The world of professional science is similar.
Many scientists love classic art and music but the definition does not
extend into the art experiments of the last decades. Some of the younger
ones are into electronic culture. The "uncredentialed" art experimentation,
however, certainly is not seen as contributing anything to serious research
in their fields; often research by other scientists in outside fields is
not even seen as useful.
- Also technology research and science often get
lumped together. Just because someone is playing with a new technological
gizmo doesn't mean they are actively engaging the process of research and
innovation that will invent the next possibilities. The expansion of digital
art or electronic music does not necessarily mean the gap between art and
science/research has been bridged. There is alot of participation in the
consumption of research - much less in framing of agendas and the production
of research. Still, the widening hunger for the innovations might ultimately
stimulate the consumers to become producers.
- Is the art experimentation good science or good
art? Probably not yet. The current era of art experimentation is still
pretty new. There are lots of questions: How much training, background
knowledge etc do the artists need to seriously enagage an area? Can their
experiments work both as art and research? How will this work be evaluated?
What will happen to the old canons of visual power, emotional engagement,
etc? How should the new art be shown? Still, what is going on is pretty
interesting and somewhat different from previous art incursions into science/technology.
-Just to give one example: An Austraiian arts group
called "Tissue Culture and Art" (TCA) is working to create stem cell sculptures.
They think medical sciences' growing understanding and manipulation of
stem cells is an important cultural event worthy of artistic attention.
They have taken it on themselves to learn the technical procedures and
background knowledge in order to work with stem cells. They have immersed
themselves in the ethical, scientific and cultural questions of this area
of inquiry. They are willing to take on research questions not ordained
by the scientific disciplines. They are struggling to find ways to present
the research process as art. It is ready to hang on the walls next to Picasso?
Probably not yet. Is it going to produce breakthroughs in working with
stem cells? Who knows? However, this kind of engagement with frontier areas
of research does seem like a very interesting first step and appropriate
place for the arts explore as we move forward.
Slashdot Mirror
I have enjoyed the debate, but just wanted to add my two cents worth. I wrote the book Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology which partially stimulated Jon Katz' first posting
- The book Information Arts attempts to survey a great variety of artistic experimentation and theoretical speculation. It doesn't claim artist interest in science/technology is new or does it take one position on the science/art split. In fact, since no other comprehensive survey was available, I was trying to bring into one place examples of artists and theorists working at that boundary coming from a wide spectrum of perspectives. I hoped the 1000 pages of examples would be a tool for thinking more about the issues.
- I know that CP Snow and his "two cultures" theory has been beaten around over the years. At one point his theory was taken very seriously and universities ran to add integrated art/science programs. Then it was decided the split wasn't such a problem. Now its seen as a problem again. John Brockman wrote a book called the "The Third Culture" that proposed that current communications and media foment provided another "culture" outside the old two where there was the possibility of much cross fertilization.
- This is the activity that I think many postings were referring to. Electronic media pervade the culture. People from many fields experiment with it and are interested. People are interested in new developments. Wired and Slashdot itself are signs of that expanding interest. Popular culture seems open to influence from all kinds of disciplines. These are hopeful indicators of the beginnings of dissolving of boundaries.
-Still, my book suggests that it is not as much of a non-issue as some postings suggest. The enlightenment really did reward specialization and concentration within disciplines. Sure there were instances of cross influences all along but the arts and sciences were seen as very separate. It still continues. By and large the mainstream art world of museums, curators, art historians, collectors do not accept the active world of scientific research and technological innovation as central concerns for the art world. Most art histories see examples such as Leonardo, the abstracitionists interest in alternative geometries, the Bauhaus, and the 60's EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) as minor footnotes to the main flow. The museums just recently accepted photography and video as perhaps art. If an innovation results in something that ends up looking like media (eg digital imaging) then the museums might now show interest. Some are trying to figure out how to use the web. Ask them, however, how interested they are in art based on more speculative research areas such as genetic engineering, medical imaging, ecological reclammation, space science, materials science, nanotechnology, telepresence, particle physics, artificial intelligence, body sensing and the like and you are likely to get blank stares.
- The world of professional science is similar. Many scientists love classic art and music but the definition does not extend into the art experiments of the last decades. Some of the younger ones are into electronic culture. The "uncredentialed" art experimentation, however, certainly is not seen as contributing anything to serious research in their fields; often research by other scientists in outside fields is not even seen as useful.
- Also technology research and science often get lumped together. Just because someone is playing with a new technological gizmo doesn't mean they are actively engaging the process of research and innovation that will invent the next possibilities. The expansion of digital art or electronic music does not necessarily mean the gap between art and science/research has been bridged. There is alot of participation in the consumption of research - much less in framing of agendas and the production of research. Still, the widening hunger for the innovations might ultimately stimulate the consumers to become producers.
- Is the art experimentation good science or good art? Probably not yet. The current era of art experimentation is still pretty new. There are lots of questions: How much training, background knowledge etc do the artists need to seriously enagage an area? Can their experiments work both as art and research? How will this work be evaluated? What will happen to the old canons of visual power, emotional engagement, etc? How should the new art be shown? Still, what is going on is pretty interesting and somewhat different from previous art incursions into science/technology.
-Just to give one example: An Austraiian arts group called "Tissue Culture and Art" (TCA) is working to create stem cell sculptures. They think medical sciences' growing understanding and manipulation of stem cells is an important cultural event worthy of artistic attention. They have taken it on themselves to learn the technical procedures and background knowledge in order to work with stem cells. They have immersed themselves in the ethical, scientific and cultural questions of this area of inquiry. They are willing to take on research questions not ordained by the scientific disciplines. They are struggling to find ways to present the research process as art. It is ready to hang on the walls next to Picasso? Probably not yet. Is it going to produce breakthroughs in working with stem cells? Who knows? However, this kind of engagement with frontier areas of research does seem like a very interesting first step and appropriate place for the arts explore as we move forward.
If you would like to know more about the book, Information Arts, please visit http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson/book/infoartsbook .html
If you would like more information about TCA or other artist experiments, please visit my categorized set of web linkst links2.html
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~infoarts/links/wilson.ar