[spectre] Art and science: why duality is good, why (new media) theory is poor

[Annick Bureaud]

Jose-Carlos wrote :

>  usually the most deep and open criticisms come from the
> outside of a discipline, from "the other", that is excluded from the dialog

so ... if this is true for science (I would rather use the plural 
"sciences"), this should be true for art too. Let's people "outside the 
art" or "arts" (plural again) look at what art is doing ;-)
no more theoreticians, art philosophy, etc.
... huh ! May be it is what is already happening and what we (the 
critics, theoreticians, philosophers, artists, curators, media 
activists, etc.) are fighting against.

Sorry, I could not help !

Sometimes, in this discussion, I wonder about "which" science we are 
talking about : an imagined one, a fantasized one, the one that is used 
by politicians (and business alike) to justify everything and anything, 
the one that scientists do (and some scientists are very much backing up 
some politicians and business while others are not) ?

We still don't have answered Andreas's original question. I had planed 
to, at least give some info, but, well ... only 24h a day.

Forgive me for the above (half) joke. Jose-Carlos, I agree with you. It 
was not intended against you. Just I am in a "light" mood today.

Annick

-- 
***************
Annick Bureaud (annick at nunc.com)
tel/fax : 33/ (0)143 20 92 23
mobile : 33/ (0)6 86 77 65 76
*****************
Leonardo/Olats : http://www.olats.org