Art with science David Harris

DANM 201 Fall 2014

1

Introduction

During recent decades, there has been a growing interaction between science and art, in

various forms. Artists are being inspired by, or drawing from, scientific subject matter,

and scientists are beginning to appreciate the value in presenting their work in forms

more accessible to broader audiences. However, much of the so-called science art that

is produced is either artistically sophisticated but not true to the science, and therefore

lacks credibility among scientists, or is true to the science but doesnt warrant

consideration as interesting art, as opposed to visualization or representation.

Is it possible to create art that is credible to both scientists and artists? It would seem that

the answer is yes, as we can supply examples of such work, but it seems in danger of

being swamped by science art that isnt credible to both communities. To pose a

different form of the question then, what aspects of the worldviews of artists and

scientists are compatible, and which are in conflict? What sort of art can be made in the

compatibility overlap?

What is science art?

The interaction between art and science can happen in various forms, all of which are

often labeled by the term science art. These include art works inspired by scientific

content, artworks made using a scientific process, art works about science,

visualizations and representations of science, and other variants.

2

There are various labels used by authors and artists for these forms including science

art, sciart, artsci,, sci-art, and science + art. The meanings of these terms are

ambiguous and the differences are not worth trying to disentangle for our purposes. As

Miller (2014, xxii) writes,

One last problem is what to call this art form that is influenced by science or technology. Terms such as artsci, sciart, and art-sci seem inadequate to convey its beauty and subtleties, though Ive opted for the first. I have no doubt in the future these works will become known simply as art.

The main point is that some of these forms have difficulty withstanding scrutiny as art,

the question we are concerned with here. Sian Ede (2005, 3) writes, While Sci-Art

sometimes seems to be all the rage, not all of it is interesting as art.

To step away from the loaded terminology, we choose to use the term art with science

when describing the kind of art we seek, where we are cognizant of the various meanings

of with including those of accompanying, in some relation to, characterized by or

having, using, and in regard to. We shall continue to use the term science art to

described existing work concerning the interaction of art of science.

Problems with extant science art

Wilson (2002, 875) catalogs some of the issues with forms of science art that make it

less viable as art than desired. These include the fact that many areas of science are

neglected when it comes to art, although this shortcoming doesnt indicate a problem

with specific art works that have been made. More concerning is a shallowness of

analysis. Wilson indicates that artistic experimentation in frontier areas is somewhat

3

superficial, and he sees a need for more extended engagement with scientific processes

and methods. Perhaps also reflecting the relative youth of science art, he challenges the

field to make work that is more emotionally powerful. Much like the origins of

technological art, the focus of the work can be very intellectual and targeted at the

science/technology. It makes you think, certainly, but does it make you feel, in the way

that art has traditionally done?

The research community, as a whole, is yet to engage strongly with the arts, despite

efforts by many individuals. To achieve credibility in the sciences, those researchers will

probably need to become more involved in the art-making process both on individual and

institutional levels.

A scientific worldview

Scientists commonly share a worldview inspired by the work of Descartes but has

curiously not progressed considerably further. Midgley (2001, 197) bemoans how

poorly current scientific education prepares scientists to understand the crucial role of

science in the rest of life. This task, instead, has been left primarily to those in the

philosophy of science and science studies communities, both fields which are often

considered somewhat scornfully by practicing scientists and the origin of the mid-90s

science wars (Rose 1997), despite relatively little knowledge on behalf of scientists of

what those communities actually study.

4

Wilson (2002, 12) notes that science is defined by science textbooks, philosophers, and

commentators through a set of core elements including

an attempt to understand how and why phenomena occur; focus on the natural world; a belief in empirical information; a value placed upon objectivity, which is sought through detailed specifications of the operations that guide observations; the codification into laws or principles (wherever possible precisely expressed in the language of mathematics); and the continuous testing and refinement of hypotheses.

However, work in the philosophy of science calls into question the validity of each of

these properties at various times.

With regard to the philosophy of science, most scientists are living in early times. They

generally subscribe to a Cartesian view in which the world is mechanistic describable by

a set of mathematically based laws. As Sommerer and Mignonneau (1998, 7) write,

Descartes search for scientific truth has influenced the general framework of science

up to the present day. Even though there have been significant challenges to this

approach coming from within science (specifically in terms of quantum physics),

scientists tend not to have internalized such a change. Sommerer and Mignonneau (1998,

12) write, Modern theories of physics are giving rise to a new world view, that is no

longer the objective, exclusive Cartesian-Newtonian worldview dividing mind and

matter. Nor have scientists accepted the research of those outside their own scientific

fields especially when it reveals limitations in the views of scientists about the process

and role of science.

5

Where scientists are familiar with the philosophy of science, it tends to be in terms of

Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability and Thomas Kuhns paradigm shifts. Even then,

the Cartesian view is paramount despite comments by Popper (1959, 16) such as,

And looking at the matter from the psychological angle, I am inclined to think that scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a purely speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the point of view of science, and which, to that extent, is metaphysical.

Furthermore, Kuhn (1962, 2 and 4) writes, Perhaps science does not develop by the

accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions, and An apparently arbitrary

element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative

ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given time.

These ideas tend not to have penetrated the scientific community very deeply, primarily

because of lack of familiarity of scientists with these core texts in the philosophy of

science.

Taking the philosophy of science even further, Feyerabend (1975) argues that the nature

of scientific knowledge is deeply influenced by the culture of science at a particular

moment in time as it is embedded in a broader societal culture.

So although there has been considerable work done in the philosophy and sociology of

science, it appears to have had little effect on scientists fundamental views of the nature

of science. They very much believe in the concept of science revealing deeper

fundamental truths of the universe, despite solid arguments for the idea that truth is

not within the domain of science as all scientific knowledge is contingent.

6

Artistic worldviews

Artistic worldviews, by their nature, are much harder to pin down, as most artists do not

subscribe to the idea of fixed criteria, goals, or deduction. However, artists still tend to

pursue truth in their work, albeit a very different kind of truth from what scientists feel

they pursue.

Most artists and critics agree that, as Wilson (2002, 17) catalogs, art is intentionally

made or assembled by humans, and usually consists of intellectual, symbolic, and sensual

components. Beyond those properties, there is little agreement on the definition or

nature of art with experimentation rife and the scope of art always expanding.

Scientists views on art and artists

In this section and the next, the general stereotypes of scientists and artists from each

others perspectives are at play. This is clearly not to say that all artists or scientists

believe the following, but that these themes are common in discussions with artists and

scientists.

In general, scientists tend to view art from within a classical aesthetic framework. They

tend to be strong believers in the derivation of truth from beauty to the extent that they

explicitly use beauty as a criterion in evaluating new theories within science. In fact, the

names of the two heaviest quarks in particle physics, usually called top and bottom,

are sometimes given as truth and beauty.

7

Even Edwards (2008, 6), who runs an artscience lab, writes in aesthetic terms,

Even more interesting to me is what happens when the aesthetic and scientific methods combine. How does this happen? There may be aesthetic aims that require application or understanding of the scientific method.Or there may be scientific aims that require application or understanding of the aesthetic method.Either way, the fused method that results, at once aesthetic and scientificintuitive and deductive, sensual and analytical comfortable with uncertainty and able to frame a problem, embracing nature in its complexity and able to simplify to nature in its essenceis what I call artscience.

With this aesthetic framework in place, it is no surprise that scientists often consider

scientific visualization or representations as the pinnacle of science art, despite the fact

that few in the art world would judge that kind of work in the same way. Scientists also

view explicatory art as valuable even when artists tend to disdain such work as too

didactic or fixed in meaning.

Scientists often see artists as little concerned with details and liable to mistake over-

extended analogies for scientific truths. They often feel that artists lack rigor, are

misleadingly ambiguous, and suffer from a lack of clarity of thought.

Anne Nigten writes in Brouwer et al. (2005, 87),

Why is it so difficult for programmers and scientists to understand artistic concepts and research aims? The writing style used in scientific research is very different from that used in the artistic disciplines. Writing in the natural sciences is meant to be taken completely literally: the scientific method aims to narrow the domain of research and exclude the risk of misinterpretation. In interdisciplinary collaborations, this literal approach is usually brought in by techno-scientists and engineers.

Artists views on science and scientists

8

Naturally, there is no standard artistic view of science but common complaints about

science are that it is too sterile, that emotion is discounted, and that it tends not to be

evocative. Artists commonly view scientists as obsessed with detail to the point of

missing the bigger picture. They see scientists as quick to provide solutions rather than

leaving questions open for others to ponder. Artists often see science and scientists as

tackling small problems remote from human concern and lacking immediacy.

Prominent artist Myron Krueger (in Sommerer and Mignonneau 1998, 14) says that the

difference between artists and scientists, is that artists believe in their intuition, scientists

dont. And engineers are paid to trust in other peoples intuition. However, progressive

science is made by scientists who do believe in their intuition.

Although there is some truth to these stereotypes on both sides of the science/art divide,

there is also misinformation, misinterpretations, and general lack of awareness of the

nature of the others process.

Nigten again on writing style:

Without a doubt, there is a mismatch between the open style of writing favored by artists and the dry, narrow approach of their technically minded partners. Parallel to the connecting or knitting approach, artistic writing describes aimed-for outcomes and processes in a poetic or multi-interpretive way which allows for surprises and unpredictable outcomes.

Arends and Slater (2004), aware of the common restriction of art-historical knowledge

among scientists, write that, It is imperative that the sciences remain in dialogue with

9

not only the aesthetics, but also the ethics and political critique underlying counter-

cultural elements in contemporary art.

Comparison of art and science

The stereotypical worldviews of art and science then contrast strongly in some ways and

show similarity in others. Wilson (2002, 18) provides a comparison table, which we

reproduce here.

Differences between Art and Science

Art Science

Seeks aesthetic response Seeks knowledge and understanding

Emotion and intuition Reason

Idiosyncratic Normative

Visual or sonic communication Narrative text communication

Evocative Explanatory

Values break with tradition Values systematic building on tradition and

adherence to standards

Similarities between Art and Science

Both value the careful observation of their environments to gather information through

the senses.

Both value creativity.

Both propose to introduce change, innovation, or improvement over what exists.

Both use abstract models to understand the world.

Both aspire to create works that have universal relevance.

10

Clearly there is no easy split between the fields, nor are the fields identical. As Arends

states in Arends and Thackara (2003, 14),

It would be fatuous to think that art is like science or vice versa, or that the combination of the two could create a new academic discipline. Equally, it would be short-sighted to assume that the two disciplines cannot engage in a meaningful and productive debate.

Wilson (2010, 6) concurs,

Art and science, the twin engines of creativity in any dynamic culture, are commonly thought of as being different as day and night. This is a critical error. The partitioning of curiosity, inquiry and knowledge into specialized compartments is a recipe for cultural stagnation.

The more sophisticated views of both art and science show more similarities than

differences. Jones and Galison (1998, 2) write,

What much of this focus on art and science as discrete products ignores are the commonalities in the practices that produce them. Both are regimes of knowledge, embedded in, but also constitutive of, the broader cultures they inhabit.

Feyerabend (1975, xiii), in particular, is critical of the lack of awareness of other

perspectives among scientists. While strongly denying charges against him of relativism,

he writes,

All I say is that non-experts often know more than experts and should therefore be consulted and that prophets of truth (including those who use arguments) more often than not are carried along by a vision that clashes with the very events the vision is supposed to be exploring.

He also argues that the results of science can only be judged after the fact and that non-

scientific procedures cannot be pushed aside by argument. Scientists are no better at

predicting success ahead of time than non-experts and hence,

This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads). In cases where the scientists'

11

work affects the public it even should participate: first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get--a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science. (Feyerabend 1975, 2)

The implications for art are clear. Artists should become involved in scientific

discussions both because the processes of science affect them and their participation is

crucial to a democratic science.

Jones and Galison (1998) argue that art/science is often set up as a binary economy,

which is a false representation of the fields.

Indeed, Anker and Nelkin (2004, 185) write,

Our findings in The Molecular Gaze reinforce the notion that science has left the private confines of the laboratory and become part and parcel of the social order. Through the artists lens, science is not a dry mechanistic set of equations but an enlivening interrogation of the malleable dimension of life.

With these considerations in mind, it seems there is plenty of evidence to argue that there

is space for art with science and we now explore the qualities of such art that might allow

it to exist credibly within both artistic and scientific worlds.

In pursuit of credible art with science

Here we outline some areas for potentially fruitful exploration in creating art with

science, drawing from the analysis above and comments in the literature.

12

Intellect and spirit: Perhaps foremost, the art with science we seek must, in Wilsons

phrase (2002, 875), tickle both the intellect and the spirit, so as to draw in both art and

science communities.

Explore similarities: Art with science should exploit the similarities between art and

science where possible. It seems that process is an area that has the potential to be much

further explored. Careri (2008) writes,

I believe that in this creative encounter in the working process, between a deep but vague desire of the author and a complexity of the potentially ordered material, is to be found the essential connection between artists and scientists, and other scholars as well.

Use of all science and all of art: Much science art work explores the ethical and

societal implications of genetic engineering, climate change and the environment,

robotics, and various technologies. However, there is considerably more science that can

be used as working material for art with science, especially in the social sciences

(Sarukkai 2009). Also, much of the science art that exists uses only a few media available

to the arts. In particular, painting, sculpture, digital visualization, photography, and

theater/opera seem to be overrepresented while new media, interactive art, tactical media,

performance art and other areas seem underrepresented.

Creation of knowledge: Arends in Arends and Thackara (2003, 10) states,

It is at this messy and amorphous juncture, where the creation of knowledge starts, that scientists must find their inspiration. It is an opening that offers opportunities to collaborations between art and science.

13

Use of technology: Much techno-art presents the technology front and center, in parallel

with conclusions by Myron Krueger, related in Brouwer et al. (2005, 17), Interactive art

is a potentially rich medium in its own right. Since it is new, interactivity should be the

focus of the work, rather than a peripheral concern. However, technology can be a one-

trick pony and more sophisticated and subtle uses of technology will allow science to

play a more significant role in art with science, without being overshadowed by the

technology. This might help avoid a complaint of Kemps (2000, v),

Too many of the increasingly fashionable art-science initiatives seemed to me to be operating at a surface level, in which obvious points of contact (e.g. artists using scientific imagery) were simply narrated or in which objects from art and science were juxtaposed without really interpenetrating.

Steps toward acceptance of art with science

Given the different worldviews of artists and scientists, there seem to be opportunities for

education of both artists and scientists that might be helpful in seeing the spread of

credible art with science.

Scientists, for their part, could do with a better grounding in the sociology of science,

science philosophy, and related fields. This could potentially help them question their

closely held views of the epistemological status of science and make them more open to

the questions explored by art. Of course, this is no small task, and in the meantime, it

seems that artists can help by making art that gets the science right, or is done in

collaboration and under the imprimatur of scientists so that other scientists accept the art

as credible.

14

Artists, meanwhile, have much to learn about how scientists think and operate. By

seeking the similarities of process, they should find fertile ground for artistic exploration.

When making art with science, they also should not shy too far from providing sufficient

scientific information for audiences such that the audiences can appreciate the pieces with

additional context they might be lacking, even if, at first, this approach might seem too

didactic.

By better informing both sides of the art/science divide, which is largely cultural and not

foundational, there would appear to be plenty of opportunities to make art with science in

a way that is credible to both sides.

15

References

Aerts, Diederick, Mathijs, Ernest, and Mosselmans, Bert (eds.) 1999. Science and Art:

The Red Book of Einstein meets Magritte. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Anker, Suzanne, and Nelkin, Dorothy. 2004. The Molecular Gaze: Art in the Genetic

Age. New York: Cold Spring Harbor.

Arends, Birgit, and Slater, Verity (eds.) 2004. Talking Back to Science: Art, Science and

the Personal. London: Wellcome Trust.

Arends, Birgit, and Thackara, Davina (eds.) 2003. Experiment: Conversations in Art and

Science. London: Wellcome Trust.

Brouwer, Joke, et al. (eds.) 2005. aRt&D: Research and Development in Art. Rotterdam:

V2_Publishing/NAi.

Careri, Giorgio. 2008. Artists and Scientists: Open and Hidden Connections.

LEONARDO, Vol. 41, No. 5, p. 428.

Ede, Sin. 2005. Art & Science. New York: I.B.Taurus.

Edwards, David. 2008. Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. London: New Left Books.

Jones, Caroline A., and Galison, Peter (eds.) 1998. Picturing Science, Producing Art.

New York: Routledge.

Kemp, Martin. 2000. Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science. Berkeley:

University of California.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago.

16

Midgley, Mary. 2001. Science and Poetry. London: Routledge.

Miller, Arthur I. 2014. Colliding Worlds: How Cutting-Edge Science is Redefining

Contemporary Art. New York: Norton.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.

Rose, Hilary, 1997. Science Wars: My Enemys Enemy isOnly PerhapsMy Friend in

Levison, Ralph, and Thomas, Jeff, Science Today: Problem or Crisis? London:

Routledge.

Sarukkai, Sundar. 2009. The Missing Link in Art-Science Discourse, or Art and the Social

Sciences. LEONARDO, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 106.

Sommerer, Christa, and Mignonneau, Laurent (eds.) 1998. Art@Science. Wien: Springer-

Verlag.

Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology.

Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Wilson, Stephen. 2010. Art + Science Now: How Scientific Research and Technological

Innovation are Becoming the 21st Century Aesthetics. New York: Thames &

Hudson.