[spectre] Arts and Sciences

[trebor at thing.net]

Andreas wrote:

>(most of the 'gravitation' mentioned here might be coupled with a
>centrifugal force, in which case it would be interesting to
>understand who or what is keeping the two, art and science, in each
>other's orbit.)

In the face of resource scarcity the arts have a hard time! This is the (or at
least -one) backdrop for the flirt between the arts and sciences. In the U.S.
the business logic of the university moves the largest part of academic funding
to the sciences. Universities see this investment as seed funding to attract
corporate involvement aiming for large-scale profits that so far have largely
not materialized. In light of the absence of much significant cultural funding
outside of academia this trend matters a great deal in Bush country. In the
battle over resources the humanities have no chance of winning and the funding
for these areas of inquiry may increasingly be found only at long-established
niversities who can still afford the luxury. In the context of this funding
dynamic a widespread scientification of the arts kicks in. Cultural producers
battling over grants adapt to science formats. This is not always their genuine
choice. Their work is suddenly framed as 'research' and 'case studies' are being
carried out. A Ph.D. is often necessary to apply for national science grants.
The noticeable interest in practice-based doctoral degrees is more often than
not related to this funding logic. This is at least one rational for the
centrifugal force that you allude to...

Trebor