just wanted to mention two recent works, which can function as a
comment regarding the disciplinarity, relevance and reach of the
works deriving from the exploitation of the intersections of art and
1) the cigar shaped asteroid which took a strange trajectory recently.
> On 14 Dec 2017, at 17:06, Gary Hall wrote:
> The only thing I might add would be that, for me, any such subjectivity would
> not assume that the boundaries between the human and nonhuman are drawn
> arbitrarily. Nor that they are largely meaningless. Rather,
Dear Eric and all,
Thanks for a really enjoyable discussion so far. Not long ago, I would
skip over most ArtScience related material, because as Florian Cramer
already pointed out, this seems to belong to another era and a
particular lab-oriented approach that isn't up to scratch to the
Thank you for your highly articulate and critical questions, which deserve a
far more thorough answer than I can provide here with limited time available.
Still I want to respond in brief to some of the issues / problems you raised.
> On 10 Dec 2017, at 19:58, Gary Hall
Thanks for the stimulating and thought-provoking text. I’m enjoying the
discussion it’s generated. Would you mind if I asked some questions?
The mention of Latour in the context of the Anthropocene and its
undermining of the human’s ‘natural’ boundaries with the nonhuman brings
A suggestion : Start thinking in a completely different ways. Use
diffractive reading, writing and researching to find new approaches.
We need it.
Some sources :
Three Minute Theory: What is Intra-Action? An introduction to Karen Barad's
concept of "intra-action.
Thanks Brian for introducing Earth Systems ideas, they go a long way towards an
understanding of the connectedness across the wide scale of the entire planet
from an approach that is understandable to a literate Westerner. There is a lot
of new, creative, and very pertinent science happening
Thank you Florian for these further comments and your problematisation of the
concept of ArtScience.
The extended lineages of ArtScience I’m overly familiar with and I deliberately
tried to avoid them in this text so as to develop a slightly more ‘fresh’
perspective’ - I’ve been reading
> Le 8 déc. 2017 à 18:57, Brian Holmes a écrit :
> Similarly, the notion of "fundamental research," outside applications and
> consequences, has become fallacious. For example, I believe fundamental
> research into the constitution of twenty-first century
> Like Eric, and to Steve's bemusement, I'm influenced by Bruno Latour. The
> best way to say why is to recall a scene from an interview made perhaps two
> years ago for the French Ministry of the Environment, which pictures Latour
> sitting on an indoor chair outside his country
This is a great discussion! CAE just wrote this:
One of the reasons we stopped doing these projects was due to the fact
that our experience of the ArtSci world was that it was not progressive.
In fact, our experience was that most were unknowing agents for the
neoliberals. Aestheticizing the
Just a few random comments related to the discussion Eric has initiated.
Between 1997 and 2007, Critical Art Ensemble did quite a few
art/science/politics projects. When speaking about those projects we would say,
“it looks like science, but its not.” If someone wanted to engage us as
Thanks so much Brian,
Very relevant critique. Without wanting to get stuck on a term, I was using the
word ‘field’ partly because there is a field of practice that refers to itself
as ArtScience (with a growing number of initiatives, organisations, museums
even), towards which I wanted to take
Eric, I totally appreciate and admire your interest in all this, but
with due respect I think making ArtScience into a "field" is an archaic
twentieth-century delaying tactic, from the days when liberal society
could believe itself eternal. Reading this morning about California's
on this matter internally I wrote a short essay / position
paper called “Locating ArtScience’. The second draft of that essay is appended
below as this could be of interest here I think, given previous discussions
about the Earth Sciences, why some of us did not want to ‘March for Science’
Mail list logo