[spectre] Science and Art

[Paul Brown]

On 14/03/06, *Andrew Bucksbarg* <andrew at adhocarts.org 
<mailto:andrew at adhocarts.org>> wrote:


    If artists are so busy modeling science, do scientists ever seek to
    imitate artists?


One problem here is that when scientist see art , unless
they are particularly involved they just see the comtemporary
popular scene (ie BritArt) and, correctly, perceive there's
little there of value for them. In general they are not aware
of the less well know constructivist traditions where the
more relevant work is taking place (mainly because the
economic drivers of the art world - the commercial and
state galleries - don't show/collect this kind of work). It
rarely makes it into the contemporary and therefore historical
record.

    What are the sciences that have become arts or arts that have become
    sciences (ancestry)?


I was one of a group of artists working at the Slade in the
1970's who used computers there under the influence of
the Systems Art group. We were using deterministic
systems, cellular automata, etc... I was astonished in
2000 when I discovered that alife researchers knew about
our work and that it was getting known as one of the
major tap roots of the discipline. I have recently written
an essay on this period for publication in a forthcoming
MIT Press (Leonardo Imprint) book. If anyone wants a
pre-print let me know:

_From Systems Art to Artificial Life: Early Generative Art
at the Slade School of Fine Art_, chapter in *White Heat
and Cold Logic: British Computer Arts 1960 – 1980:
An historical and critical analysis*, Gere, C & P Brown,
N Lambert, C Mason (Eds.), MIT Press, (to appear)

Going back into history there are many polymath figures.
My favourite is Durer.

When the "two cultures" split it was mainly along the
lines of classicism -v- romanticism. The classical
tradition led to the foundation of the Royal Society and
the scientific method, romanticism led to self-expression
and the self indulgences witnessed by todays artworld
operating under the (I would suggest misunderstood)
rubric of post-modernism.

I guess what I'm saying here is that there is still a
tradition of artists who see themselves as alligned with
the classical/analytical/constructivist tradition and
mostly at odds with the higher profile romantic/post-
modern tradition - which merely promotes individuality
and novelty and is therefore much easier to market
especially considering the very conservative nature of
the mainstream artworld.

One final comment here (and i may be repeating a
comment Roy Ascott has already made - or was that
another list?...) In ref. to your "art modelling science"
"science imitating art". What i am primarily interested
in is artists and scientists collaborating on projects for
mutual gain. And not for example artists appropriating
scientific ideas for their own gain - which i see as part
of the romantic/postmodern fallacy. When scientists
see this latter they quite rightly perceive there's little
in it for them apart from at best publicity so they are
reluctant to engage.

Back to lurking
Paul