1.5 There is no sci-art

Linda Francis/ Science can be the subject of art,  just as reason can be a method or operation in making art and then in understanding it. It can be style. But the appellation “sci-art” is a brand, a useful commodification just as the embrace of science in the popular media is a necessary sale to the public in a world which is increasingly underpinned  by the sciences.  The allure to artists: the gorgeous imagery, structure, form of the macro/micro revealed in photographs and stories of escape from society’s more clearly repulsive  spectacle. It opens onto the usual discussions of aesthetics in terms of questions of beauty, truth, the ideal, resonance, et al.

One Reply to “1.5 There is no sci-art”

  1. The topic is worthy of debate, but the assertion here of the non-existence of “sci-art” is tenuous — perhaps because of its (seemingly) narrow defining. Sci-art isn’t just about beautiful images taken from, or captured with, scientific imaging tools; sci-art is equally about utilizing scientific principles, processes, and mechanisms to explore, or reveal, possible artistic values and meanings (and document these , as in the creation of sci-art works) given the pervasiveness of Science in our lives. Further, it may also attempt to re-appropriate scientific artifacts (e.g., data visualizations), placing these in new or odd contexts, so as to reveal other purposes, perspectives and meanings not normally associated with these artifacts. They even may be utilized to construct a narrative (fictive or real or a hybrid of both) that reveals a socio-political dimension, as with sci-art that raises ethical/moral questions about the direction of certain scientific disciplines, like molecular biology and genetic engineering ).
    Sci-art is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *