Wed. No. 15, 2017
5.1 If you were to respond to the questions in Session I now, after ten days of dialogue, would your responses be any different? Have any of your attitudes and assumptions about the sci-art movement changed as a consequence of this discussion?
5.2 If we were to further the dialogue – either here or elsewhere – where would you like to see it go? Are there any voices that have been conspicuously absent, and if so, how might we go about getting them involved?
Session V Dialogue
Taney Roniger/ Heading into our final day here, I have to say that eleven days now feels woefully inadequate for the kind of dialogue we’ve been having! So many of the issues raised here beg for further exploration, while others equally rich in potential have gone all but untouched. That said, we’ll be keeping this forum live through the end of the year should anyone want to further pursue any of the ideas discussed. I’d also welcome posts with notices about other sci-art goings-on here in New York or elsewhere – it would be wonderful to get to know more ...Read More
Gianluca Bianchino/ As I go about my career making works in dialogue with science, and therefore participating in Sci-Art to some extent, I still believe the category itself is potentially unnecessary for it is the result of defining a trend and less so a movement in art. We are in a strange age that orbits the very edge of Postmodernism, echoing the long undefined boundary of the solar system the Voyager space-crafts are traveling through. Before these space-crafts securely reach another system will they be traveling through a forever undefined border? Perhaps we are currently making our way through an ...Read More
Suzanne Anker/ Taney, thank you very much for your efforts in helping to clarify some of the intersections between art and science. As there is not one kind of science or one kind of art, more specific definitions and re-definitions are in order. One aspect not covered in the discussion is the notion of epistemic things, a term greatly referenced by Hans-Jorg Rheinberger in his writings. He refers to epistemic things as concepts in experimental systems. That said, perhaps we can view art as an experimental system and begin to outline its attributes ...Read More
Taney Roniger/ When we began this dialogue eleven days ago, one of my main objectives was to impose some sobriety on what James Elkins has memorably – now perhaps indelibly — called the drunken conversation between art and science. Establishing clarity and eradicating misunderstandings, I was convinced, was the only way sci-art could mature as a genre. How quickly I was disabused of this notion! Indeed, if there’s one thing that’s been made clear to me over the course of this symposium, it’s that working with only partial understandings can be wonderfully generative, and that by taking little stabs at sense ...Read More
Werner Sun/ Inspired by what Dan and Suzanne said about the boundaries of sci-art: We have been focusing on science-based art, but it might be interesting to consider the implications of the converse — art-based science — by which I mean the study of art objects using scientific techniques. There are many examples: violin makers systematically quantify how violins produce their distinctive sound (also this), physicists have deduced what Jackson Pollock knew about paint, and at the lab where I work, x-rays have revealed hidden layers in a Picasso painting. Some artists are uncomfortable with such work because they feel this reductionist ...Read More
Dan Weiskopf/ At the outset of our discussion, encounters between science and art were framed by James Elkins’ seductive image of the drunken conversation. A conversation may meander, lose its way and double back, but no matter how confused things become, it is still held together by the cooperative norms that prescribe mutual intelligibility as a goal for all parties. These norms, even if allowed to lapse in practice, always hold out the prospect of achieving a hazy form of comity ...Read More
Taney Roniger/ As an extension of our Strange Attractors conference, I was invited to serve as Guest Editor of the Critic’s Page in the December/January issue of The Brooklyn Rail. The section, which features 20 essays by selected conference participants and an introduction I wrote to give them context, further explores some of the ideas we covered in our symposium. The Critic’s Page can be found on the Rail’s homepage: https://brooklynrail.org/ . My hope is that by extending our audience to include the Rail’s readership we’ll be able to continue the dialogue on a larger scale. Comments from Rail readers can be ...Read More