The Sci-Art Moniker and Art’s Fight for Relevancy

Daniel Hill/As has been touched on so eloquently elsewhere here, and as evidenced by the absence of Sci-Music or Sci-Poetry, the visual arts appear to be in a desperate position to retain some cultural authority.  Whether the alienation of the general public; the toll paid for years of cold, exclusive postmodernist jargon; a blind capitalist system dictating aesthetics via market value; or poor overall art education, the art world seems to be a bit of a mess right now.  It is no wonder that Sci-Art would emerge, but the moniker has become synonymous with an illustrative aesthetic which can lose sight of art’s fullest, most valuable potential.  It is noteworthy that the “Sci” comes first in this name and emphasizes the concern that the art part gets lost.  Art has the unique ability to pitch our perspectives outside of our little world enough so that we see the world … Continue reading

Response to Taney’s post On the Question of Audience

Daniel Hill/ I used to like to make a thought experiment of trying to imagine the edge of any material object as magnification is slowly and steadily increased.  Physics has shown that any solid object is mostly empty space, so at some point in magnification, the boundary between the thing and no-thing would become difficult to determine.  Since thinking about the line between art and science can feel like wading into quicksand with no possible outcome, I like to think in terms of perspective.  One thing we can be sure of is that our tenures on this planet are exceedingly brief.  The universe exists more without humanity than with us.  The vast majority of species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct.  Until the 1920’s the universe was only as big as the Milky Way Galaxy until Edwin Hubble made his breakthrough discovery.  Now with the dark matter/dark … Continue reading

A few thoughts on 1.1 & 1.2

Daniel Hill/

Many of the group dialogues I have been involved in with artists and scientists have indeed wound up like a drunken conversation.  Often it seems both are using the same terminology but have different definitions.  Another issue seems to be a more than average knowledge or awareness of current issues in science on the part of the artist and a lack of general knowledge of contemporary art on the part of the scientist.  I think this is because in the potential sciart relationship, art needs science more than science needs art.


I see the most fundamental difference between art and science to be the objective nature of science and the subjective nature of art. Science is concerned with the world of the real and art is concerned largely with simulated realities. Science requires reproducible results and art depends on the inability to reproduce.


I think there … Continue reading