SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Recent interest in scientist-artist collaborations has raised some important questions. One of them is:  are collaborations helping you in any way?

While artists say they came across new grounds, theories and themes to experiment on  and learnt a  few interesting things and started seeing things in a new light, the scientists didn't give  a positive response except for saying that they are still wondering what these collaborations can do to their work!

One Physicist who is working at CERN says :

CERN has quite an enthusiastic art program now, but there is a feeling that the scientists at CERN retain a high degree of scepticism, maybe even cynicism, but probably mostly indifference to the activity (  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/jun/18/art-... )

Disappointed by the outcome, Wellcome group has discontinued funding these projects.

Science is too important to be left to the institutions of science, and art is too important to be left to the institutions of art, says one art professor. Another one expresses doubt whether art can really contribute anything to science ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0719/122432037864... ).

There are conflicting opinions and confusing reports.

I want to hear from both scientists and artists who are actually on the ground and working in collaborative projects what positive effects they think these collaborations can have on them. And in what way they can help each other to bring more fruitful outcomes.

Views: 630

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree entirely with what Sebastian says - modesty is essential to collaboration; a willingness to see both sides of the coin. In my experience as an artist-in-residence, some people are a lot more open-minded than others ... the open-minded ones are the ones I try and work with!  

Some scientists like the fluid dynamics phenomena which I produce to be labelled/modelled in scientific terms ('Kelvin-Helmholtz instability', 'Rayleigh-Taylor instability').  Others look at what's going on in broader terms and can see the artistic implications as well.   But when all is said and done,  the  ink/water flow does not think of itself as being scientific or artistic; it is just itself! -  If people get that idea, and can recognise the difference between reality and their own set of constructs, then I know I can work with them effectively.

Dear Anand

Fortunately art and science have definitions that allow us to establish relations between them.

 I did not quite understand your comment

  For example I think you do not oppose if it is possible to apply in fine art, colored fusion Helmholtz, and other ways that they provide science. But this requires an effort to scrupulously check the effect.

Successfully in your research.

Iliescu

 

My problem with this discussion is that i do not understand the bioptical method...It is like trying to learn a process with not enough tools....my idea of a science art collaboration is working with ideas...i have an idea and need resources/information/contact with science to be accurate in my outcome and also to add content and depth to my idea.  It should not be a process that has an predetermined outcome. 

A collaboration should feed both the scientist in perhaps seeing the subject in a new light and the artist who perhaps finds more information and a new perspective beneficial to expressing their idea...


I do not feel this group has been moving beyond the basic premise which i kind of understood to be working with optical illusion.  This could/should take off and be a challenge to participants rather than a "lesson".  Lets be more open ended and set out a "call" for visual representations based on the idea...if you had to make a call to artists you would have to be concise with the prospectus as to what you would consider for the "show".  Artists could wrap their heads around the call and then collaborate with scientists as to how to interpret or to best represent their  artistic responses.

Just some thoughts

Dear Teri Power

For understand bioptical... I recommend linck:

Manual EN 

You have to take time and patience to perceive bioptical effects.

Are people who spontaneously senses them through crossed eyes.

Others are perceived by  design (see the drawings she have communicated - design students can easily carry the device)

If you have not seen the space by stereoscope you have a disability.

Anyway to increase your sensitivity to the perception of space I

recommend  linck:   

Fig. SB16…SB18 - testing the stereoscopic perception 

 it is possible to remove the handicap  (if you are) through numerous trainings.

 

I regret the lack of culture, of Mr. Anand.

Practice it is dominated by a scientific field, and possible

scientific events related through publicity, but his psychic evolves in narrow feelings.

 

Please ask me, I responded with pleasure.

 

Best regards

Iliescu

Thank you, my dear friends,  for your valuable inputs.  I want more opinions from artists.  They really help us in programming better collaborative projects.

Thank you, Prof Anand for your compliments. But do I really deserve them?!

Vijetha, keep trying, you will definitely succeed one day.

Paz, what sort of explanation do you want regarding Biological theories and problems?

Mr. sebastian, you are right, ego has no place in collaborative work.

Teri, your idea of collaborations is interesting.

Mr. Ghosh, Mr. Iliescu and Ms. Pery I welcome your thoughts too.

Ego has nothing to do with the opinions of the scientists. We have time sense because we are busy people and know the value of our work. The artists we came across had argued with us on trival issues and wasted our time. They neither had respect for science nor our time. We have also noticed that their arguments were not based on facts but on their beliefs which is against the scientific spirit. Artists who want to enter the labs should learn first the scientific way of thinking and working like Krishna said in one of her articles. They should try to integrate with the scientific culture. Only then these collaborative projects can succeed. One artist pointed out that her understanding of science is not very good. If that is the case, science communication which is one of the main aims of science-art collaborations has no future at all.
Scientists who are collaborating with the artists at present are either into both the fields like Krishna - she deserves all the praise for her afforts - or some high end professors/scientists who make their juniors work for them and therefore has nothing to lose much in terms of time and work.

Prof. Anand, we too have time sense but I am afraid, it is not as good as yours. You are right, we have to learn first about the scientific way of working before entering the labs. Otherwise scientists might not cooperate with us in the way we want them to. We have more to lose than the scientists, if we don't integrate with them in the right manner. Scientists can just walk out and leave us in the dark world we are.

A good understanding between artists and scientists is necessary for a bright future of these collaborations. I request my artist friends to consider the points made by Prof. Anand. Let us not argue with him. Let us understand his concerns. This should be the first step for realizing a great idea.

Thank you Prof. Anand and Ms. Vijetha for your opinions. Vijetha, you are the type of person scientists gladly accept to work with. You have the right attitude.

Here is an example of how an artist accidentally helped science:

http://kkartlab.in/video/mirrorbox-the-story-of-how-art-became-science

Watch this video and let me know what you think.

Collaborations do not succeed in many situations. A critical condition for their success is the existence of a shared body of knowledge and techniques, which scientists call a shared praxis. A shared praxis does not exist when there is disagreement over basic values. Such disagreements destroy collaborations, for arguments cannot be settled. Arguments can be resolved only if there is general agreement on standards for what it means for analyses or procedures to be valid or correct.

Because the conceptualists and experimentalists think so differently and approach problems from different directions, it is unlikely that they will share sufficient values to make collaboration effective.

Collaboration is usually episodic or short lived, though there are exceptions. It is hard for collaborators to work together over very long periods of time.  Collaboration requires not only the shared praxis, but also agreement upon the subject to be explored and the strategy to be pursued. Consequently, collaborative work tends to focus on a few articles or a book rather than a lifetime agenda. Because experimental work often has a longer gestation, there may be less collaboration among experimental innovators than among conceptual innovators.

( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-galenson/collaboration-in-scien... )

I don't mind working with artists like Vijetha. Like Krishna said she has the right attitude.

I have reservations regarding people who come to the table with preconceived notions like 'scientists have big egos and they think they are superior to artists' etc. etc. Scientists have better things to do than argue about who is superior and who is inferior. They are too busy to think about egos and other ordinary things.

All that they consider while dealing with a collaborative proposal is whether the work will benefit everybody or not. Whether it will help people involved or not.

Artists try to remove your tinted glasses when you approach scientists and see the scientific world in its true form.

Dear Anand

You think that I interfere with the attitude of superiority

in my offer to work with artists?

I appeal to them because the are enrolled in my plan of experimentation.

  I also bioptical compositions but can not claim that I  have artistic potential

of that could launch a new communication which I propose.

  How will highlight artists knowing that each year currently

  are created thousands of paintings and digital images?

Please read the  synthesis, of my offer

I hope some artists will be interested to get bioptical

device that is easy to make and that is

essential object of the bond between me and its.

I hope to help yourself in my plan, including supplements theoretical.

 

 The Bioptical Art provides the opportunity to develop new skills in the visual sense.

Thus highlight the following effects:

See link  ;  3. Bioptical effects, definitions

 

Psychophysical mixture of colors, retinal cooperation, antispace in art, spatial harmony, bispace in art, psychic cycle, dynamics of space depth, spatial disharmony, hyperrealistic effects, hiatus in art, visual gradient, hyperspace in art, field binocular rivalry.

 

 

The modalities that I propose may be valorised by arousing a wider interest, if the fine art artists, by using traditional techniques and their talent, will create complex compositions with bioptical stimuli. On one hand, Bioptical Art will bring developments in research of psychology, neurology and psychiatry, and, on the other hand, it will give possibilities to the field of aesthetics to supplement chapters such as: disinterested interest, art as sensorial experience, art dependent knowledge and others.

 

 

 

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2018   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service