Taney Roniger/ While many of the threads we started last Sunday are still going strong, today I want to propose another set that promises to be equally catalytic. Moving from theory to practice, our third session gets down to the meat and bones of the matter: How exactly is sci-art being made, and with purposes in mind? I’ll be especially curious to hear people’s perspectives on one of the most nagging issues of the genre: Is scientific imagery sufficient to invoke scientific content?
Modes of Engagement:
Exploring the Nature of Art’s Involvement with Science
Fri. Nov. 10 – Sun. Nov. 12, 2017
3.1 With what angles of approach are the various sci-art genres engaging with science? Does sci-art aim to celebrate, popularize, “problematize,” or challenge science? Can it do all four at once?
3.2 How is scientific content embodied in works of art?
3.3 What is the relationship between scientific imagery and scientific content? Does the former necessarily imply the latter?
3.4 With the rise of transdisciplinary practices, we’re hearing more about “art as research.” What does it mean to engage in art as research? (Similarly, more talk is heard of “art as knowledge production.” What is the nature of the knowledge art produces?)
3.5 Are there modes of sci-art engagement that seem particularly problematic, and if so how might the issues be addressed and/or circumvented? Are there modes of engagement that seem particularly promising?