[spectre] Re: New Constellations: Art, Science and Society

[aabrahams]

Hi all

Science and art are two really different realms that only come
together via other domains as money, philisophy. Both can use
technology, even the same, but that doesn't mean that they can be
close.

Science is basically occupied with "truth" and art with "beauty" (with
"beauty" and "truth" being context dependant variables) As far as I
know they only meet in mathematics.

best
Annie Abrahams

andreas  wrote
>
> dear friends,
>
> out of curiosity: is there any evidence that the relation between art
> and science is in fact intensifying (as blurbs like these always
> suggest), and that what we see is more than a (statistically
> horizontal) decade-spanning string of incidental projects and
> cooperations? there has been talk about this intensification for at
> least 50 or even 80 years, if you take the original Bauhaus or the
> post-revolutionary Russian Avantgarde into account. but there also
> seems to be an insistence of much of art to stay away from science,
> and vice versa. luckily.

> (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.)
>
> regards,
> -a
>
>
> >New Constellations: Art, Science and Society
> >An international conference charting the ways in which art and science are
> >gravitating towards one another within contemporary culture. The Conference
> >will present the latest thinking about collaboration between artists and
> >scientists and examine how the worldwide trend towards interdisciplinary
> >engagement is changing the definitions, methodologies and practices they use
> >and how they view the social implications of their work.
>


anna  wrote
> However, in the session I'm responsible for –'New Languages' – all the
> speakers in fact start from a position that says: " Science and art don't
> actually speak the same language, so then what do we mean by
> collaboration? What is the mythology created around this idea by using a
> 'language of collaboration'? Is a 'communication' paradigm useful for
> describing art-science working strategies or is there a problem here that
> glides over crucial problems of translation, slippage, praxis etc?'. Other
> sessions deal with the politics of legitimation ie how do artists use
> science to legitimise their work etc. So I think you might find that the
> content of this conference is not some kind of generalised crap about
> happy art and science people!


--
annie abrahams
http://www.bram.org