The Sci-Art Moniker and Art’s Fight for Relevancy
As evidenced by the absence of Sci-Music or Sci-Poetry, the visual arts appear to be in a desperate position to retain some cultural authority. Whether the alienation of the general public; the toll paid for years of postmodernist jargon; a blind capitalist system dictating aesthetics via market value; or poor overall art education, the art world seems to be a bit of a mess right now. It is no wonder that Sci-Art would emerge, but the moniker has become synonymous with an illustrative aesthetic which can lose sight of art’s fullest, most valuable potential. It is noteworthy that the “Sci” comes first in this name and emphasizes the concern that the art part gets lost. Art has the unique ability to pitch our perspectives outside of our little world enough so that we see the world through new eyes and touch upon the ineffable. This transformative catalyst is needed more now than ever in society. But making good art is not an easy road. It can be extremely difficult and requires years of dedication and sacrifice to find one’s personal vision and develop a unique visual lexicon. I fear a Sci-Art that relies too heavily on the science in place of doing the difficult task of a deep visual inquiry. If Sci-Art is to move forward, do we want the type of art that is mainly a scientific pedagogic tool or the catalyst of personal and societal transformation? Can we have both? And if we can, is the latter still called Sci-Art? Perhaps the latter needs no name. Great art does not depend on its description; it simply is just great art. Matthew Ritchie was basically making a form of science inspired art decades ago but it wasn’t called SciArt. Maybe this Other Sci-art should not be a movement as much as it should be a personal decision on the artists’ part. It is my experience as an artist and curator that being able to talk about art within a scientific context does increase an audience’s ability to appreciate the work. Maybe this is because it ties a complex visual language to that which is the most compelling concept- the truth, or its pursuit.
But without the support of an overhaul in art education and the eventual shift in attitude towards the arts in society, artists will continue to have a very tough road indeed. Which is why my thinking endures doubts that science can help recontextualize art and break or expand its current status. Ultimately I think the conversation between art and science has enormous potential and only through analysis can it become stronger and more effective.
The enthusiasm is palpable in the SciArt scene and any enthusiasm for art and/or science on any level in our current troubled society is a good thing. This will continue as it performs a necessary function. I only hope that the other that I refer to is not overlooked; that it too, has a much needed function as well; one that has an innate link to our species as a sophisticated language for communicating the ineffable and perhaps a link to our personal and collective realization of, and transcendence of, ignorance.
This site will serve to emphasize this type of art, which is not drawing inspiration so much from within the art world, but primarily from without- from the realm of science and the natural world. If art is thought of as a meme in the original definition, that is, a thinking tool, then the best way for it to propagate is the same as with genes, by avoiding incest and seeking inspiration from outside the art world. Work such as this is a first baby step toward a unification of the two cultures.
To paraphrase Max Planck, science advances by the way of funerals. We cannot expect to have consilience in our lifetimes, but we can do the necessary step of moving in that direction. With the proper motive, the work will be its own reward. As EO Wilson stated in his book Consilience, “The strongest appeal of consilience is in the prospect of intellectual adventure and given even modest success, the value of understanding the human condition with a higher degree of certainty.
Daniel Hill
October 2019
Note: portions of this have been previously published in the symposium Strange Attractors: Art, Science, and the Question of Convergence as The Sci-Art Moniker and Art’s Fight for Relevancy by Daniel Hill.
Consilience: “Literally a ‘jumping together’ of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation.” EO Wilson, Consilience, Pg 7