The worlds of Art and Science have traditionally had an uneasy relationship. In spite of a rich history of artists who dabbled in science and vice versa, (think Leonardo da Vinci), modern education seems to strive to separate the two disciplines, forcing students to specialise in apparently opposing camps. And yet to excel in either discipline requires broadly similar human attributes, ‘inspiration, creativity and hard work, the willingness to experiment and be brave’ (Peter Rogers, Physics World)
In the words of Bill Bryson in his recent, A SHORT HISTORY OF NEARLY EVERYTHING, ‘I grew up convinced that science was supremely dull.’ And so, why do artists and scientists wish to collaborate? What do they hope to gain?
The Arts Catalyst in London has been working nationally and internationally in their mission to extend, promote and activate a fundamental shift in the dialogue between art and science and its perception by the public. At their first major conference in February 1998 the question was asked: ‘What are the big conflicts in science and what have artists got to say about them?’
Art/science collaborations have become increasingly popular and are being enthusiastically advocated by both arts and science organisations with funding available for projects from Arts Council of England, The Wellcome Trust, Scottish Arts Council, Arts Catalyst and Arts and Humanities Research Board. These collaborations take many forms. The range of work includes, displays of artworks in hospitals to enhance environment and health, films and drama that explore science themes such as Michael Frayn’s COPENHAGEN, literature such as Stephen Hawking’s A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME or dance such as CHOREOGRAPHY AND PHYSICS by Rita Marcalo.
The collaboration in these cases is somewhat one-way. Indeed the embryologist Lewis Wolpert is unequivocal on this subject and attacks the Wellcome Trust for the money it spends on science/art projects, ‘on the whole the arts have done nothing for science to put it bluntly, and I think science has fed quite a lot into the arts.’
Sceptics notwithstanding, Arts Catalyst continues its focus on artists’ engagement with biotechnology, ecology, space research, micro- and hyper- gravity research, astrophysics, biodynamics, and remote independent research in science, art and tactical media. Events and exhibitions are presented to the public, while education and critical debate programmes look at the role of contemporary art in examining issues and developments that modern science presents.
Later this year, (March 28th – April 2nd ) Arts Catalyst is inviting artist Oron Catts and Gary Cass of SymbioticA: The Art & Science Collaborative Studio, School of Anatomy & Human Biology, The University of Western Australia, to run an intensive 5-day Biotech Arts Workshop at the Old Operating Theatre, London.
The workshop is a hands-on exploration of biological technologies and issues
stemming from their use, it serves as a theoretical and practical introduction
to the creation of biotech art and is aimed at educating artists from the UK
and Europe in issues of biotechnology and genomics.
The workshop will present work of contemporary artists dealing with biotechnology. Scientists will be involved discussing ethical issues raised by artists’ work in this area and at the end of the week, the ideas explored in the workshop will be opened out with a public discussion event.
SymbioticA is a research laboratory dedicated to the exploration, from an artistic perspective, of scientific knowledge in general and biological techniques in particular. The School of Anatomy and Human Biology has a long history of working with artists and recently artists have been encouraged to use the laboratory facilities themselves. It is the first research laboratory of its kind, in that it enables artists to engage in ‘wet biology’ practices in a biological science department. (Wet biology is science in a lab with living things)
ArtsHub caught up with Oron Catts and asked him how he first came to work in the biological art (bioart) field.
OC:I was originally trained as a product designer and did lots of research into the possible meeting points between design and biotechnologies. But I felt that it will be much more effective to explore the issues surrounding the manipulation of living systems and the existence of objects of partial life and semi-living entities from an artistic perspective. I am not a scientist as both my training and my methodology is not scientific. While I’m using some of the tools and techniques developed for scientific exploration and technological exploitation of living systems my motivation and outcomes are radically different from both scientific and technological ends.
Much of the work at SymbioticA involves the fascinating and controversial ‘Tissue Culture and Art Project’. It involves the creation of art works using a bioreactor to grow and sustain living cells and tissue, often grown over (supported by) a biodegradable polymer. The works are referred to as the ‘semi-living’ and include Victimless Leather – A Prototype of Stitch-less Jacket grown in a Technoscientific ‘Body’, and Extra Ear ¼ Scale. What are the reactions of people who encounter the ‘semi-living’ for the first time?
OC: People seem to be confronted by the realization that parts of the body can be sustained alive (and in some cases function) outside of the original body that once hosted them. Although tissue culture is almost a hundred years old now, for most people being confronted by the existence of a living (or semi-living) tissue entities outside of the lab is a somewhat unsettling experience. This reaction stems from conflicting perceptions of life (that our cultural perceptions of life are somewhat incompatible with what we know about life scientifically and what we can do with life technologically). Because of the visceral qualities of the semi-living many people can relate to them in the context of their own bodies. This is particularly the case when the semi-living are framed in an artistic context as it challenge not just notions of life but also of what art is.
Lewis Wolpert, as quoted earlier, is sceptical about the current trend for art/science collaboration and opines that Art can never help the creative process in Science. How do you respond to that in the light of your own work?
OC:I have much respect for Wolpert’s naïve and purist notion of what science is, however, I don’t think that he understands contemporary art and his level of engagement with art seems to be quite superficial. Saying that, like Wolpert, I do not believe that art has a major role to play in the creative process of science. This might occur occasionally but it is not the reason for developing art and science collaborations, as science is a creative pursuit by its own definition.
What Wolpert seems to misunderstand (and that might be because of the type of rhetoric in the UK) is that art is not so much about generating knowledge but rather about making meanings. When we are confronted with scientific knowledge and technological applications that assault our cultural sensibilities – there is a great need for art to come in and to both make meaning and make strange.
In the emerging field of bioart, artists are working with some of the most advanced tools of modern biology; tools that originally developed to aid scientific exploration and technological exploitation. This art engages directly with the processes of manipulating living systems, making process and presentational-based art rather than outcome and representational art. It will be interesting to sit down with Wolpert and talk to him about this kind of artistic engagement that has been already referred to as philosophy in action.
My preferred model of art and science collaboration, and one we developed in UWA as the basis for our research lab SymbioticA, is that of a mutual respect of differences between art and science and one in which neither of the disciplines is in the service of the other. The artists in SymbioticA are learning the skills they need to realize their projects rather than getting the scientists to work as technicians for them, and vice versa – we do not see the artists’ role to beatify or illustrate the science.
There are undoubtedly some very interesting ethical issues to arise from your work and you must encounter support and opposition in equal measures. How do you encourage a positive appraisal of your work and how do you defend against your critics?
OC:We see our work as contestable and we do mean it. Therefore we are much more interested in critical response to our work rather then appraisals. We are, however, not very impressed by critical responses that referred to our work as a gimmick or other such superficially derogative remarks, as it shows that the critics are reluctant to deal with the real issues that our work generates.
Outside of your own research and projects at UWA, what else is happening currently (or imminently) in the world of art/science collaboration that excites you?
OC: The field of bioart is growing now and many new collaborations are being formed. There are increasing numbers of performance artists who are getting into this field, which have the potential to become one of the most exiting forms of art and science collaborations. On the other hand, I am very concerned about what is happening currently in the US with the indictment of Steve Kurtz from Critical Art Ensemble who is charged with obtaining cells from his scientific collaborator. If he is to be found guilty quite a lot of the good work that was done in this field in the US will be lost.
The mention of Steven Kurtz is pertinent and the final word in support of continued support for art/science collaboration comes from the website of one of Critical Art Ensemble’s installation projects, FREE RANGE GRAIN.
The project’s aim is to address issues surrounding genetically modified crops in Europe and in so doing, to demystify the scientific process. ‘Myths, fantasy, misleading speculation, disinformation and so on, abound in the public sphere. …the scientific process never makes a public appearance, only the miraculous products. We want to bring the routinized processes of science to the public-let them see them and touch them’
With thanks to Oron Catts, University of Western Australia. Steve Kurtz will be speaking about his case at the Royal Institute for Great Britain on 7th February, clink this link for further details: Steve Kurtz STEVE KURTZ.
For further information about bioart, the Biotech Workshop and sources please see:
http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au
http://www.britishcouncil.org
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk
http://www.artscatalyst.org
http://www.physicsweb.org
‘Science is more controversial than art can ever be’ (Cornelia Parker, artist)
