Response to Stephen: Science Museum vs. Art Gallery, and other stuff . . .

Werner Sun/ Stephen, “sci-art” as a way-finding sign is such a refreshing way of approaching the term. It does shift one’s perspective when thought of that way. I am reminded of the “shut up and calculate” approach to physics, which has certainly had its successes.

I suppose I am ambivalent about the term “sci-art” because it tends to color my interaction with any given work. It feels as if a certain lens has been placed in front of my eyes. Perhaps that is my problem and not yours.

And thank you for sharing your videos with us. Congratulations on such a sensitively curated exhibition! Incidentally, I was member of the CMS collaboration at the time of the Higgs boson discovery, and I am still involved in CMS research.

Regarding the display of scientific artifacts in an art gallery or art in a scientific setting, I have no problem with this

Continue reading

Response to Taney via Dan

Linda Francis/ I certainly agree with Dan Weiskopf’s  well taken points and enjoy his caveat -as if we could know. And Taney: that this romance has been going on through history and your observation: “Beneath all the cynicism and irony that set in with postmodernism it’s hard not to detect a really deep sadness compounded by a pervasive sense of insecurity about art’s agency as a cultural force.” Witnessing the demoralization of young art students in the face of postmodernism was tough. I realized that you cannot take a young developing cohort and tell them that their ideals and aspirations are fictions without derailing their development. Perhaps science/art is an escape from the wreckage, propelling the self into the comfortable zone of the outlier — Dan’s point #5.  And subtext:” The Matrix”.

 … Continue reading

Response to Werner: Science Museum vs. Art Gallery, and other stuff . . .

Stephen Nowlin/ Regarding some cited works of Sci-Art, Werner Sun comments that “. . . if I had encountered any one on its own, I would probably not have identified it as sci-art per se . . .” ( )

Werner, thanks for your thoughtful comment, which raises really intriguing issues. First, on a broader subject being discussed, my two-cents is that I don’t really think “Sci-Art” rises to the definition of a brand — it’s rather more like a way-finding sign. It suffices, only. Personally, it kind-of covers what I do and maybe that’s as much as we can expect of a big umbrella word. In any event, I think that what we do is not done in order to justify or fit into what it ends up getting labeled. The best we can do is agitate and incite for the moment in which our efforts might make … Continue reading

2.1 What is it about contemporary science that makes it so inviting of art/science comparisons

Lorrie Fredette/ I have a few general thoughts. The first is our ability to access enormous amounts of information via the internet as well as the promotion of news, articles, stories via social media. Step in a bookstore and National Geographic Magazine covers are glossy images of the new brain, the study of the brain and the teen brain. Organizations work hard to get their messages out and do so via these platforms creating headlines of interest to rise above the fray. One of the more important avenue of accessibility is via the NPR program RADIO LAB!! Don’t forget Science Friday, too. These programs alone have made science inviting. They have created unique ways to draw people who might not otherwise be interested in science. The accessibility has made science “sexy” when presented in trendy formats. I’m not knocking it at all. Bring it on! Add to the this list … Continue reading


Taney Roniger/ Moving into the second session today, I’ve a strong feeling we’re just getting warmed up. There have been so many thoughtful and provocative posts and comments here that many people have asked if the dialogue will be archived. I’m happy to say that indeed it will. In what exact form remains to be determined, but my hope is for some kind of print publication. I’ll be sure to keep everyone posted.

While the opening session sought to clarify some of the language surrounding sci-art, Session II will encourage us to undertake some introspection as we examine the underlying attitudes, assumptions, and motives of the movement. Doing so will set us up nicely for the exploration of the various sci-art practices to follow. My hope for the next two days is that we’ll hear from some of our readers who’ve had a chance to reflect on the art-science nexus. … Continue reading