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. Below are the questions we’ll be addressing:
A Look Within:
Examining Implicit Attitudes, Motives, and Assumptions
2.1 What is it about contemporary science that makes it so inviting of art/science comparisons and so ripe— if it is—for interdisciplinary collaborations?
2.2 What are, and have been, the power dynamics between the two fields, and how might these be shifting with the convergence in question?
2.3 How does sci-art relate to the larger trajectory of postmodernism and its as-yet-undefined aftermath?
2.4 Given that one of art’s most hallowed roles has been as a vehicle for transcendence, how does sci-art position itself with respect to this tradition?
2.5 How does sci-art relate to the larger cultural movement toward what E.O. Wilson calls consilience, or the unification of human knowledge?