http://biodisplay.tyrell.hu/2008/05/01/thoughts-on-art-science-collaboration/ go green bacteria, go! Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:02:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://biodisplay.tyrell.hu/2008/05/01/thoughts-on-art-science-collaboration/comment-page-1/#comment-21 PeterFuchs Fri, 02 May 2008 10:36:50 +0000 http://biodisplay.tyrell.hu/?p=88#comment-21 As I am coming from the field of art theory, which deals about some similar terms then you used in this post, I would like to highlight some details in your text : Yes, you are a positivist, but the tradition you are working in, arts, is a profoundly positivist tradition by origin. What you are lacking in the above discussion might be quite familiar for me from debates on modern art in the last few decades. Science, skill, craftsmanship, artifacts, all subject of a long term discussion in this field. In a modernist/positivist system, artifacts (artworks) and the "progress" of science are considered to be the parts of a same grand scheme, to "open up new possibilities" as you wrote. On this regard the artwork is in fact really a "hint" - a model, a piece of "know how" which we should use as a source of inspiration - which means the artist must have a full knowledge of the field he/she is giving the for. This is called since the high Renaissance period the idea of Skill, which not only applies to the complete knowledge of the material you are working with, but also of the nature you want to copy. It might be sad to see, how nowadays artist are neglecting the tradition of modernist movements, which encouraged people to excel themselves in scientific fields in order the "develop" and "make life better", yet, I am aware that times change, and a modernist, positivist position is challenging to be upheld in a critical system like the nowadays artistic reproduction . Still, we are changing these systems, so we have the possibilities to get it back to the right track. As I am coming from the field of art theory, which deals about some similar terms then you used in this post, I would like to highlight some details in your text :
Yes, you are a positivist, but the tradition you are working in, arts, is a profoundly positivist tradition by origin. What you are lacking in the above discussion might be quite familiar for me from debates on modern art in the last few decades. Science, skill, craftsmanship, artifacts, all subject of a long term discussion in this field. In a modernist/positivist system, artifacts (artworks) and the “progress” of science are considered to be the parts of a same grand scheme, to “open up new possibilities” as you wrote. On this regard the artwork is in fact really a “hint” – a model, a piece of “know how” which we should use as a source of inspiration – which means the artist must have a full knowledge of the field he/she is giving the for. This is called since the high Renaissance period the idea of Skill, which not only applies to the complete knowledge of the material you are working with, but also of the nature you want to copy.
It might be sad to see, how nowadays artist are neglecting the tradition of modernist movements, which encouraged people to excel themselves in scientific fields in order the “develop” and “make life better”, yet, I am aware that times change, and a modernist, positivist position is challenging to be upheld in a critical system like the nowadays artistic reproduction . Still, we are changing these systems, so we have the possibilities to get it back to the right track.

]]>