[spectre] Art and science in Berlin _ Opening next week
After a year of research and hard work around the world, we would like to invite you to the opening of the exhibition CARVED AIR at the Ernst Schering Foundation in Berlin, where we will present the latest works of the artist Yunchul Kim, created in cooperation with “Fluid Skies,” a working group consisting of Kim, the astrophysicist Jaime Forero and the art astronomy historian Lucia Ayala. CARVED AIR Opening: Thursday, September 6, 2012, at 7 p.m. Venue: Ernst Schering Foundation | Unter den Linden 32-34 | 10117 Berlin Exhibition Dates: September 7 to December 1, 2012 Monday through Saturday: 11 a.m. – 6 p.m. | Free admission. More information on the exhibition is available at http://www.scheringstiftung.de/en/project-space/news/2645-yunchul-kim-carved-air.html More information on “Fluid Skies” and the events related to the exhibition is available at http://www.fluid-skies.net/fluid-cosmologies/fc-i-berlin/ We look forward to seeing you all at the opening. Lucia Ayala the Fluid Skies team The exhibition CARVED AIR is supported by UCIRA, the Arts Council Korea, the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics in Potsdam, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and the Korea Culture Center in Berlin.__ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://post.in-mind.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
[spectre] Art and science residencies in Singapore
Deadline approaching http://anclab.org/Art.Science.2012... The Arts and Creativity Lab the Interactive and Digital Media Institute are pleased to announce the 2012 Arts/Science Residency program at the National University of Singapore. Selected artists will be invited to spend 1 month living on the NUS campus, engaging with students and the local arts c... __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://post.in-mind.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
[spectre] Art and Science in their Natural Habitat -- Seminar saturday November 11
*Art and Science in their Natural Habitat* *Seminar saturday November 11 from 13.00 - 17.30 h.* For many people the subject of art and science is still hard to grasp. Is there something like artistic science, or scientific art, and where is the boundary to be drawn as to whether something is art or science? Especially in the case of ‘invisible’ technology it is often unclear whether something is art or scientific research. For instance, to many people nano recording immediately suggests something aesthetic and artistic. The relation between art and science however has a long history, with the two going their separate ways only in the 19th century. Although since then they have cooperated less, alliances continue to exist that lead to mutually productive projects. The ‘invisible’ technology of the last few years has surfaced renewed interest in collaboration between artists and scientists. Perhaps it is the mythic aspects surrounding nano technology, biotechnology and genetics that lead to artistic ideas and concepts. That which cannot be seen and understood whets the curiosity and creativity of many artists. In many cases they try to embed scientific points of departure, methodology or research in a cultural discourse by – in the case of this exhibition – relating these to aesthetic, ethical or philosophical questions about nature and the relationship between nature and culture and the position of mankind in them. Under the title ‘Art and Science in their Natural Habitat’, on the basis of a number of presentations and discussions the Netherlands Media Art Institute is calling for thought about the relation between artist and scientist. The discussion focuses on projects that manifest a new practice, in which the relation between nature and culture is central. With Evelina Domnitch Dmitry Gelfand, Driessens Verstappen, Alex Verkade, Ben Schouten, Koert van Mensvoort, Robert Zwijnenberg en Awee Prins. See the full program: _http://www.montevideo.nl/en/index_agenda.php?cat=lid=175 http://www.montevideo.nl/en/index_agenda.php?cat=lid=175_ Entrance 10,- (students 8,-) Reservations 020 6237101, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Seminar is part of the Natural Habitat project. The exhibition Natural Habitat opens Saturday November 4 at 3:00 p.m. and can be visited untill December 16. _http://www.montevideo.nl/en/index_agenda.php?cat=eid=173 http://www.montevideo.nl/en/index_agenda.php?cat=eid=173_ Netherlands Media Art Institute Montevideo / Time Based Arts Keizersgracht 264 1016 EV Amsterdam The Netherlands www.montevideo.nl T +31 (0)20 6237101 F +31 (0)20 6244423 __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
Re: [spectre] Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media) theory is poor
Jose-Carlos, Paul Brown and Simon have raised a number of good points and examples around the relation of science to its others and to the multiple genealogies through which scientists and artists have or have not collaborated. Jose-carlos endorses duality - I'm not sure I agree here, although perhaps what I understand you to mean is differentiation between disciplinary fields for the sake of critique and active engagement? I think you've made a very pertinant point as to the differences between the sciences' engagement with science studies/sociology and their (dis)engagement with art. My feeling about the science studies engagement and the impact that has had on science comes from the actual concrete collaborative working and engagements that have taken place - social scientists going into labs, engaging with the day-to-day practice of science etc. But alos the fact that a number of scientists (especially women) became discontent with the daily practice of science and looked around for cultural theory that tried to analyse this. Soem brilliant work has come out of this transversal move by some (although admittedly few scientists) such as the physicist and feminist science studies theorist karen Barad. Similarly Evelyn Fox Keller. I think then the question remains - what would scientists want from artists? Paul brown speaks of mutual gain but this is clearly gain in terms of solving scientific research problems or innovating the scientific field...which scientists/sciences want the critical, interventionist trajectories of media artists? I think Paul has made the point that some postmodernist and corporate/established art is of no interest to scientists. however, there's certainly more to art than postmodern vs analystic tradition!! The question might be - what are the epistemological issues raised by media and new media art? Do these challenge or speak to similar issues and questions in some areas of contemporary science? I think they can and do but much of the science I am thinking of is also considered fringe by the scientific world (ie embodied mind cognitivist approaches from varela, Andy Clark etc that are very disputed by mainstraem cognitive neuroscience) Best Anna Dr. Anna Munster Senior Lecturer, School of Art History and Theory College of Fine Arts University of New South Wales P.O Box 259 Paddington, NSW 2021 ph: 612 9385 0741 fx: 612 9385 0615 __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
[spectre] art and science......
not sure what you mean... I don't see it in values. I just see the processesthe curiosity...exploration..resultart and science to me in that context set are similar.america has long bemoaned a shortage of students studying the sciences and it apparently is worse now.when I was younger it was taught as quite dry and we never got any mention of the creative, explorative, more individual result.. I had to have a huge epiphany hit me when I was a year away from my undergrad writing degree having a beer with a writer in a bar in san francisco when I realized that my uncle years before was right and what he meant when I told him writing was far superior to mathematics in terms of creativity, individulaity and singular result... he went off about how as a kid did I write on big lined paperdid I learn vocab etc... what he meant was that in the traditional educational system to that point I had only learned math and science as base tools. I work primarily with new media and locative media work that operates in art but also in an interaction of technology, art and science.. in my opinion and life experience it was quite painful how so many people saw the path of me choosing art and writing as all the pop culture short hand semiotics of no money, likely to never make it, on the fringe, non productive member of society etc... while they were beaming at the thought of me being little science boy..sure to make money and have a job they could drop at parties like the family house was that much shinier It isn't just that science is not given the credit (generality a bit here) but also that the arts in america are so seen as a fringeI wonder if it has connections to the whole frontier spiritstreets of gold cliches of america as the place you come to with nothing and build yourself up...also a relatively young country.appreciation of the arts is vastly different in so many other parts of the world so values is a tough one to answer... is art communication? is it awareness raising? is it individual voice to be interpreted as best by the rest of the world.? these are the base questions in a college art class... in terms of philosophy.my interests and actions I see as being akin to a kid in a sand box...I get curious..play.and get an end result. it just is with narratives edited by the intensity readings of hourly earthquake data, or by movements in a city with a laptop triggering history of place, its voice in a sense by gps I know that a segment of scientists are motivated by greed, by corporations looking for research to back their bad productsego.. but also of artists that claw to get aheadfalsify theory behind projects they threw together as pure play or panicked compromise..artists that create false mythologies of identity to sell themselves. so value in these fields in general is subjective I simply see it in terms of process and the joy of it..,naivein a certain way probably...but the same urge drives me to write and make art that drives me to check the weather around the world ...wonder and excitement..simply and boring as that bur what are the values your interests and actions represent -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: spectre@mikrolisten.de Sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:50:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [spectre] science and art I was on a panel in a conference at M.I.T last year and it was great to speak to creative scientists and researchers and to artists in one place. There is great similarity, we are simply taught not to see it. jeremy hight __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre --- End of Original Message --- __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
[spectre] art and science......
I think we are getting processes and roles mixed up here. Art and science both exist as social functions and their value is accrued due to this. Art and science also exist as processes. It is theoretically possible, although in practice probably impossible, to separate these two aspects of each discipline. The artist can go off and be a hermit and not engage with any of the social aspects of what they are doing, refining their vision within their ivory tower. The scientist can similarly go off and become a mad individualist in their laboratory deep in a cave or on top of a mountain somewhere (visions of Dr's Moreau or Frankenstein). However, I am unaware of any artist or scientist that does manage to work without a social context and thus I cannot see how either of these practices can be pursued without engaging with the ethical conundrums that inevitably emerge when more than one person is involved in doing something. The problem for science is that as a process it is so obviously tangled up with the instrumentality of power that underpins our (often morally ambiguous) societies. When a scientist chooses to work at MIT they must take on board the fact that many of the resources they will be accessing to do their work, whether financial, human, technical or informational, are associated with noxious origins (the NSF, Pentagon, CIA, etc). This is also true if they choose to work in the rather less military-industrial climes of Europe. However, artists should be extremely careful when they accuse scientists of being necessarily evil by association. Looking around I see little that is different for artists. They take money and opportunities as they arise. Few have the luxury of refusing the minimal patronage they receive, whether in the form of an invitation to participate in an exhibition, receipt of an arts council grant or the offer of employment in an art school. These forms of patronage can be traced back to not dissimilar origins as those that underpin the economy of science. Some artists, of course, will argue that they lift themselves above this morass of ethical muck by not selling out. I would ask these artists whether they can really make that case. How do they eat? How do they resource their practice? Is the money they use somehow washed clean by being assigned to cultural use? Is it possible to argue that by appropriating such resources they are able to make their whites whiter? Let's not get into an argument about the differences between art and science predicated on good or bad. That is such a naïve and simplistic argument. One role of the artist is to reveal the dark and ambivalent nature of things. If they are to do this effectively they have to recognise this in themselves first. I seem to remember a story about casting stones... Best Simon On 13.03.06 08:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not sure what you mean... I don't see it in values. I just see the processesthe curiosity...exploration..resultart and science to me in that context set are similar.america has long bemoaned a shortage of students studying the sciences and it apparently is worse now.when I was younger it was taught as quite dry and we never got any mention of the creative, explorative, more individual result.. Simon Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/ __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
Re: [spectre] art and science......
Oh Thank you Simon ! You put it in the way I would have loved to do, but sometimes, I am stuck by the foreign language issue. I would add : do not put on the scientists shoulders what is said/used by others, and also do not kill the messanger because of the message he/she carries. Annick Simon Biggs wrote: I think we are getting processes and roles mixed up here. Art and science both exist as social functions and their value is accrued due to this. Art and science also exist as processes. It is theoretically possible, although in practice probably impossible, to separate these two aspects of each discipline. The artist can go off and be a hermit and not engage with any of the social aspects of what they are doing, refining their vision within their ivory tower. The scientist can similarly go off and become a mad individualist in their laboratory deep in a cave or on top of a mountain somewhere (visions of Dr's Moreau or Frankenstein). However, I am unaware of any artist or scientist that does manage to work without a social context and thus I cannot see how either of these practices can be pursued without engaging with the ethical conundrums that inevitably emerge when more than one person is involved in doing something. The problem for science is that as a process it is so obviously tangled up with the instrumentality of power that underpins our (often morally ambiguous) societies. When a scientist chooses to work at MIT they must take on board the fact that many of the resources they will be accessing to do their work, whether financial, human, technical or informational, are associated with noxious origins (the NSF, Pentagon, CIA, etc). This is also true if they choose to work in the rather less military-industrial climes of Europe. However, artists should be extremely careful when they accuse scientists of being necessarily evil by association. Looking around I see little that is different for artists. They take money and opportunities as they arise. Few have the luxury of refusing the minimal patronage they receive, whether in the form of an invitation to participate in an exhibition, receipt of an arts council grant or the offer of employment in an art school. These forms of patronage can be traced back to not dissimilar origins as those that underpin the economy of science. Some artists, of course, will argue that they lift themselves above this morass of ethical muck by not selling out. I would ask these artists whether they can really make that case. How do they eat? How do they resource their practice? Is the money they use somehow washed clean by being assigned to cultural use? Is it possible to argue that by appropriating such resources they are able to make their whites whiter? Let's not get into an argument about the differences between art and science predicated on good or bad. That is such a naïve and simplistic argument. One role of the artist is to reveal the dark and ambivalent nature of things. If they are to do this effectively they have to recognise this in themselves first. I seem to remember a story about casting stones... Best Simon -- *** Annick Bureaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) tel/fax : 33/ (0)143 20 92 23 mobile : 33/ (0)6 86 77 65 76 * Leonardo/Olats : http://www.olats.org __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
[spectre] Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media) theory is poor
Dear friends: After reading a lot of different positions on this never-ending discussion on the relation between Art and Science, I want to give an opinion on why the dichotomy of science and art are quite useful and probably why they are also irreconcilable in a 'unity' perspective, and also, expand it towars our own criticism, within the new media community, of a lack of critical theoretical analysis in some areas. Whenever science becomes rationalist or mechanistic, there should be criticism. Anna Munster mentioned that inside science there is some criticism, but usually the most deep and open criticisms come from the outside of a discipline, from the other¹, that is excluded from the dialog but also has the right for participation to give an opinion. Artists in that sense had been part of this enriching external opinion, although, to some extend, quite ignored or taken seriously, hence, undervalued. In fact, the organizing visions in art are different than the ones in science. Even inside communities (these happens even more in science, where there are specialized groups, which means they are defactum isolated from other groups or general topics inside science itself). Nevertheless when we are exposed to hibridity, lets say to an artistic approach of a formal discipline, initially the people of the former community will be doubtful: the analyses will not satisfy the formalization of thought that is internalized in a particular group. This will lead towards seeing art as a nice thing¹ but nothing more. The formal discourse will usually not include into its formulation the discussion brought from the arts. Even more seriously, since art has a natural tendency to be seen to have an esthetical function, it will be left aside, once more, as seen as a nice thing¹. In that sense public opinion is underestimated, and this is why the museum should convert itself into a social science laboratory, should be seen as the experimentation towards the understanding of issues that arise within today¹s society. Yes, if we talk about this, we immediately will think about many interactive art pieces that had tried to develop public awareness towards certain subjects. Hence, duality in art and science could be seen in a positive way: whenever a science is neutral or conservative (dogmatist) towards a certain issue, art could bring up those issues in a critical way. However, I want to address here a second critical point: art is usually not taking into consideration the theoretical basis of the critical issues around science from a deep perspective. In that sense perhaps it is important once more to mention the work in areas such as the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) that had build a corpus of theoretical discussion that enriched not only the relation between Science, Technology and Society (Knorr-Cetina 1981; Mulkay and Knorr-Cetina 1983; Latour 1987; Law 1991 among many others) in these sense, Science takes seriously or at least discuss and criticize many of the works done around SSK. However this does not happen in Science with the discourse that comes from the Arts. Even more, some of SSK¹s theories, specially the ones related to social constructivism (Law 1999) take into consideration not only the inner core, but also the outer core, in that sense, the diaspora of emergent situations that are out of the centre, what we had been calling the other¹ or the marginal¹. This marginality sensitivity is fundamental for assimilating new pattern and invigorating a theoretical discourse that has been quite Western-oriented since its formal academic establishment. This, as I mentioned before, could be also interpreted as a criticism towards the current state of new media theory and its deepening with other concurrent discussions. We cannot deny that there has been quite an important theoretical development in new media art, especially from an historiographic and genealogic point of view. However the deep discussion about the future is something that though is addressed by artists (in this respect, as Dreyfus (2001) mentions ³Artists see far ahead of their time²) it is not worked in a much more detailed and deep manner. This is perhaps not only the work of the artists but of many of new media theoreticians, to start fostering and enrich a discussion in our former community and expanding it to address several critical issues that have a much more deeper and wide implications in society and are multi-disciplinary (or sometimes pertain to specific disciplines). Moreover, if the take a view that does not only covers our little theoretical world of new media and open it up, we will perhaps start to incorporate diverse practices from other areas of the world, those others¹ that in the case of new media art are neglected by the majority (if not all) of encyclopedic approaches in what I consider today a rude exception to a much more broad reality. We cannot just think that media art has a history
Re: [spectre] Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media)theory is poor
- Original Message - From: Annick Bureaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jose-Carlos Mariategui [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Spectre spectre@mikrolisten.de Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [spectre] Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media)theory is poor Jose-Carlos wrote : usually the most deep and open criticisms come from the outside of a discipline, from the other, that is excluded from the dialog so ... if this is true for science (I would rather use the plural sciences), this should be true for art too. Let's people outside the art or arts (plural again) look at what art is doing ;-) no more theoreticians, art philosophy, etc. ... huh ! May be it is what is already happening and what we (the critics, theoreticians, philosophers, artists, curators, media activists, etc.) are fighting against. Sorry of my very special Anglophone language : Can be there are too much numerous experts speaking of Art (Arts) by a way that drives (it) them to the orders, as we know how money comes through the discourse of Art and through the conceptual criticism of Art(s) waited by certain institutions or foundations. In the former times there was too orders coming from institutions. But institutions did not conditioned (but only the subject) the free interpretative answer by the artist. That is exactly not more the actual situation. Money does not come directly to Art but to curators or to any happy few as artists being able to make the academic discourse of their artistic actions. What does not give the best sign that Art (even they would be several) would be so representative of its traditional symbolic tribute. Artistic acts of artists have not to speak of themselves but only by themselves... More having to be explained or extended by the discourse of their artist Arts do not reveal of the force of their acts but all the contrary. During the modernity and the post-modernity several artists were too writers or poets, any of them philosophers too, other were criticizes, or writers and mathematicians were same time poets or artists -I shall give few between a lot of examples as different as are Raymond Queneau, or Topor, or Jodorowski, or Lewis Carroll, Wittgenstein, even nowadays by a part of the different works of Peter Sloterdijk, but that was/is always in a register of feeling or trans-intellectual as a gift (even a published work under private signature) toward their respective field to other artists or to people. That was not of marketing nor of lobbying but of change, can be sold but not exactly as commodity. In fact I think that the problem of the relationship of Sciences with Arts it is not the problem of what is an Art, but the problem that Sciences are not Arts by the fact that Sciences work always with a methodology to experiences can being reproduced or not approved as result -even these ones or human sciences regarding stochastic to relative reality decidability as they say. While Arts are the expression of the free feeling or interpretation to a work as event, not as the truth of a proof, but as real event. There is something shamanist in Arts and in Poetry that never would be abolished, even the artists as members of the demiurgic part of societies would have left to be representative, their would stay any ones not being called artists but following creative objects, even virtual, from their own predictable feelings of their time of their imagination of other times. The question is that more Arts leave their traditional reprentativity (that comes more from the trans-modern environment and social connections after the times of the connective production) more they leave their social interest and more they are unsupported, more Sciences appear as an alternative providential supporting truth to renew Arts -that makes a consequent -between the numerous- entropy of Arts. Because unfortunately there is not at all -or by misunderstanding- connection between the symbolic events and the scientific proofs without which there are no sciences. But they may have game between themselves, they may play together: can be very interesting as dialectical installation of the mind ; but without critical relationship it is a very dangerous game to the actual player whose name is Art. And both time it is a very dangerous game in matter of freedom - free event as butterfly of which poetry is a field useful towards any price to humanity. Can be more an extending scientific field to call for money from the side of the absolute commodity at the cost of Art. But overall we cannot be reductionist of Arts, by this way we can only say : if entropy is so much advanced can be Arts as collectively representative are really dead (as Baudrillard could told of since a moment event he was not understood, in the historical sense of the lost symbolic connections to the trans-modern societies and power regarding the artistic acts
[spectre] Art and science
The relationship between art and science has long been fraught, and the more so as technology has become so central to the exercise of power in our cultures. Given that science tends to have a close relationship to technology and thus the dominant discourses of power it is often considered to be inseparable from that discourse. However, it can be argued that the situation is far more complex and that the relationship between science, technology and power is not one of a hegemonic bloc but of polyvalent influences and motile relationships. The Bauhaus and the early 20th C avant-garde in general had a naïve and romanticised vision of science and technology. These things were mixed up with notions of progress and modernity and many artists and thinkers aspired to the values these paradigms facilitated. As always, things were not simple and whilst some deeply questionable marriages occurred (Futurism and Fascism comes to mind, but so does the relationship between aspects of the Russian avant-garde and Stalinism as well as strains of Western Modernism and the more extreme excesses of Taylorist Utilitarianism) it is also the case that many good things eventuated from such collaborations between scientists (including Social Scientists, whom often seem forgotten in these debates about art and science), technologists and artists. Therefore it would seem unwise to talk about science as a singular subject, just as we should avoid discussing art in such singular and narrow terms. Human inquiry and creativity is a complex thing reflected in a wide range of formalised (and less formalised) activities that may or may not be termed science or art. The debate might better be conducted focused not on the relationship between science, art, technology and politics but on the question of value. These four areas of human activity are related, whether we like it or not - and an art disassociated from the other three would represent a strangely affected way of (dis)engaging with the world. That said, the phrasing of the announcement for New Constellations seems unfortunate for it appears to be accepting prima facie that art and science are very specific social practices fixed upon certain courses in a value free environment. I would, as Andreas is suggesting, also question the objectives of any event that presented itself in such a manner. Best Simon On 18.02.06 02:48, Andreas wrote: dear friends, out of curiosity: is there any evidence that the relation between art and science is in fact intensifying (as blurbs like these always suggest), and that what we see is more than a (statistically horizontal) decade-spanning string of incidental projects and cooperations? there has been talk about this intensification for at least 50 or even 80 years, if you take the original Bauhaus or the post-revolutionary Russian Avantgarde into account. but there also seems to be an insistence of much of art to stay away from science, and vice versa. luckily. (most of the 'gravitation' mentioned here might be coupled with a centrifugal force, in which case it would be interesting to understand who or what is keeping the two, art and science, in each other's orbit.) regards, -a New Constellations: Art, Science and Society An international conference charting the ways in which art and science are gravitating towards one another within contemporary culture. The Conference will present the latest thinking about collaboration between artists and scientists and examine how the worldwide trend towards interdisciplinary engagement is changing the definitions, methodologies and practices they use and how they view the social implications of their work. Simon Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ Professor, Art and Design Research Centre Sheffield Hallam University, UK http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/ __ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
