One of the latest fashions in cultural policy is the “art and science” approach, which is supposed recreate some form of “equal dialogue“, beyond science informing art or art communicating science. I argue that this approach cannot succeed because of the intrinsic asymmetry between understanding art (which is possible for anyone in principle) and understanding science (which is possible only for peers). There can be a number of benefits in connecting scientists and artists, including new ideas for art works and approaches for science communication, but one should not expect the barriers between the disciplines breaking down. A potential issue with the “art and science” discourse is that it tends to unduly favour the small group of artists and scientists taking part in it and muddy the criterion of peer assessment in evaluating science.
As one of the few scientists turned (cultural) diplomat, the omnipresent “art and science” movement has naturally raised my attention. The buzz around this concept – also among those allocating grants for culture – would appear to vindicate my own career choice and puts me a privileged position of someone who knows “both worlds” that are supposed to be merged. Unfortunately, the way the concept is understood and practiced (or claimed to be practiced) appears to be rather sterile and fruitless, as it sets goals it cannot achieve and could even lead to an erosion of scientific values.
The ideal: a dialogue of equals
It is true that, historically, modern science and arts did emerge together, as the results of a joint revolution. During the 15th and 16th century, breakthroughs in anatomy, geometry or archaeology went hand in hand with revolutions in painting, music and sculpture – driven, among others, by polymaths like Leonardo and Michelangelo.
The number of such artist-scientists was to sharply decline during the modern era, notably because of the sheer growth of the body of knowledge and ensuing scientific specialization. By the early 20th century, the relationship between art and science had overwhelmingly turned into one of reaction of artists to scientific and technological developments. Photography, film, psychoanalysis, the theory of evolution, to name just a few, nourished new artistic tendencies and expressions. Overwhelmingly, contemporary art (when it is not completely self-referential and empty) continues to react to scientific and technological advances and creates little output of genuine scientific interest.
This is where the current “art and science” movement comes in, by claiming to restore some form of equality between science and art. One of the main centers for avantgarde multimedia art connected to cutting edge technology, the Ars Electronica in Linz, expresses this intuition in one of its major EU-funded calls:
“S+T+ARTS is driven by the conviction that science and technology combined with an artistic viewpoint also open valuable perspectives for research and business, through a holistic and human-centered approach.” (starts.eu)
In this sense, the “art and science” approach explicitly tries to avoid both (i) using new technologies for art or informing art through science and (ii) communicating science through art. The interaction between art and science is supposed to happen freely, among equals, with both sides learning on the way, maybe leading to some sort of joint practice.
The same logic applies to the omnipresent “Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics” (STEAM) projects in education. The appearance of arts in this acronym is not just meant to counterbalance a focus on too narrow a set of competences, but usually taken to mean that all these subjects should be taught together, again on some sort of “equal” footing.
The issue: a fundamental asymmetry
The ideal of an open dialogue between art and science, achieved without hierarchies, without subordinating one discipline to the other, opening up spaces for both sides to learn from each other, breaking down limitations, is quite appealing. Should not art and science be part of a well-rounded education and enrich everyone's life?
The norms of modern science are intersubjectivity, reproducibility and progress. To achieve them, science relies on intelligibility for the group of peers – scientists in similar fields – because they are the ones who can understand, question and validate new scientific contents. Scientific production does not involve the general public as an actor and is not directed at it. Only at a later stage, through the separate task of communicating or vulgarizing science is science partly made accessible to the general public.
Contemporary art, on the other hand, is very skeptical of norms, (such as beauty) in general, and consists of practices that are (supposed to be) broadly intelligible in themselves. Everyone who is interested in art should be able to engage with it and to talk about it with the artist. Naturally, a greater knowledge of technique and art history might lead to a deeper engagement – but it is not a prerequisite. Drawing parallels to other art forms, experiences, smells, and impressions is at least as important for the discourse about art as pontificating about about minute details of the specific works that might have inspired the artist.
So the dialogue between the artist and the scientist interested in each other is characterized by a constitutive asymmetry. The scientist might not be able to produce art for lack of technical abilities or experience, but he can discursively engage with art at the highest level. The artist, on the other hand, lacks the background knowledge and experience that is essential for the scientific discourse, and will only be able to engage with vulgarized science.
An open exchange between artists and scientists can certainly be interesting, but it should be clear that during such a dialogue, art and science will not be discussed at the same depth. This does not mean that science is somehow „worth“ more than art – they are two fundamental expressions of humanity, of incommensurable value. But deeply discussing science requires expert knowledge, while discussing art does (and should) not.
The reality: “art inspired by science” and “art for science”
Since the ideal of equal dialogue is unworkable in practice, one wonders what the innumerable “arts and science” grants result in. It is striking that they always produce art, never science. This is to be expected, as vulgarized science, which the artist will come in contact with, is very far removed from actual research problems. The artist cannot inform the scientist on his practice, while on the other hand, even through vulgarized science the scientist might inform the artist in hers.
It thus turns out that the “art and science” approach leads back precisely to the very pattern it wanted to evade: science and technology inspiring artists. Projects selected by the S+T+ARTS prize mentioned above end up being – no doubt ingenous – ways of applying technology to create art works, from data stored in the genome of plants to mapping maritime shipping. We could call this tyope of outcome “art inspired by science” (and technology), or, more poetically, scientists being the muses of artists.
There is a second, less common type of outcome from the exchange between artists and scientist. Although the artist might not contribute anything to science by coming into contact with its vulgarized form, she might very well contribute to science communication itself, ranging from data vizualization to sculptures, soundtracks and film scripts. The STEAM approach combining arts and science in the classroom ends up being understood in this way, where art becomes a tool to better communicate science:
“STEAM has shown great potential for making science (and science professions) accessible and relatable to students. STEAM learning is especially effective when students are cast in the role of artist and scientist rather than in that of audience. A successful template for STEAM-for-accessibility has been to first facilitate students’ scientific participation or discovery, and then facilitate the students’ reflection on their scientific experience through the creation of visual art—often a drawing or painting.” (Segarra et al. 2018)
This second type of outcomes represent “art for science”, where applied artists work to improve science communication (and scientists improve their communication skills). Again, this is a very useful endeavour, but far away from the original idea of “art and science”. It will come as no surprise that most scientists understand the value of “art and science” in that way – as a tool to network and attract more attention (and in the end more funding) to their research.
One objection to my argument is that contacts between artists and scientists could end up producing artist-scientists – modern incarnations of Leonardo. However, the reasons that there are so few artist-scientists run very deep: specialization, different sociological milieu and way to accumulate social capital etc. Setting up a few residency projects for artists and scientists cannot bridge that divide. At best it could improve the social mixing between the two groups, at worst it will give visibility to the (usually mediocre) amateur art produced by scientists or incite scientist to work outside their field as “artists”.
A second objection is that contact with art and artists can – at least indirectly – support scientific creativity, such as Harry Kroto's discovery of fullerenes, which was supposedly triggered by his experience as a graphic designer. Claudia Schnugg presents a number of case studies of “art and science” that benefited scientists as much as artists Since science is creative work, there is no doubt that it can benefit from all sorts of experiences, thoughts, and feelings, including those outside the narrow scientific field, to open new perspectives and research ideas. However, this mechanism is so wide that there is no no reason to think that art or contact with artists would support scientific creativity any more than praying, debating with a chef, learning a foreign language or going hiking. There is no justification to institutionally sponsoring this specific form of exchange rather than another.
Summary and word of caution
In this article, I tried to show why the self-proclaimed aim of the “art and science“ movement, to replace the instrumental relationship of art and science with some sort of “dialogue of equals” fails. The numerous projects in this field invariably end up producing either art inspired by science or art for science, not in breaking barriers between the disciplines or methodologies. This should be acknowledged in the programs funding contacts between artists and scientists.
A final note of caution: while it is clear that exchange between artists and scientists can be of great value to the participants, in terms of a wider network, a broader skill set and greater visibility, one should keep in mind that the main beneficiaries are small subgroups within the artistic and scientific community, which are in competition with the rest of their communities. What should be avoided is that average research spiced up with witty artistic spin-offs receives more recognition than strong research „only“ published in academic journals (and vice-versa mediocre art made shiny by adding “AI and biosensors” to everything). As much as cross-fertilization can – indirectly – have positive effects, the main criterion for judging science should remain the genuinely scientific contribution as recognized by peers. Science communication and art informed by science are valuable in themselves, but they follow a different logic.