|
Re: Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media) theory is poor: msg#00107culture.internet.spectre
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 |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | DiY audio: 00107, leon |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | unNatural Selection - New Media Art in Regional Australia: 00107, Snagglepussy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media)theory is poori: 00107, Louise Desrenards |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media) theory is poor: 00107, John Hopkins |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |