science vs art
I often find the boundary separating science and art somewhat arbitrary and useless. I often can be found haphazardly dismissing either term as useless and then go into some rant about the need for a new language. And while, I will still retain this stance, I had an interesting interaction with an artist who is doing a show at MASS MoCA. His name is Carsten Holler and he is a soft spoken german who is absolutely invested in his practice. He loves espresso and apparently has several aviaries tucked away at his home
He was telling me how he often sits on panel discussions regarding the merger of science and art and he finds it a bit annoying. As an artist with a PhD in the biological sciences, he is not unfamiliar with scientific methodology. And in fact, he appreciates it greatly. But he often thinks that art allows one to say multiple things at once and that in science, you benefit from saying one. I enjoyed that distinction greatly as its switches the languages of both forms of inquiry towards one of tools. That is, they are both a set of different tools used to gain different results. It allows us to get art out of the question of taste, because we are still invested in the question of ‘findings’ but it doesn’t absolutely shove art into the terrain of some myopic utilitarianism. These distinctions can easily be applied to art and activism as well. The need to move between constructive ambiguity and the need to speak specifically about something. I think that arty things tend to embrace ambiguity in its ability to speak on multiple levels and to also elude language. I suspect that is why, for many people, the idea of didactism is antithetical to art. But of course, one who only loves ambiguity, has already let go of the desire to act against a system of repression. I think. Well, that may not actually be true. I wonder if there is a tactics of complete ambiguity. I bet there are many and I bet I would find 95% of them highly suspect.
I think this terrain between art and science, art and activism is a useful one to move through and articulate. I say this because I know that these false dichotomies (particularly when they are subject to folk’s careers and ontologies) ends up shaping our culture greatly. A more activated language that speaks to the production of meaning and empowerment, could provide a handy resource for a younger generation that find themselves caught between the utility of science and the hopeless luxury of art. That we are talking about developing an infrastructure of meaning production. These terms are useful because ultimately we must produce a politics that addresses the overwhelming power of media and information to produce subjectivities. It is this ability of spectacle that has overwhelmingly undermined a global sense of democracy. In order to construct a new language around a hands-on democratic project, we must be able to articulate the power of meaning production and the ills of coercive meaning domination (spectacle). ok yes, that was a rant.
Now, the thought on science and art is often one where I think I could do something a little more radical in my shows at the museum. I suspect that it would be quite useful for folks to read a cohesive straightforward treatise on why the work at MASS MoCA isn’t simply science. That it is in the work’s desire to say multiple things and their ability to engage the viewer in this process, that it differentiates itself from a scientific method. But speaking basically on the subject would do great things.. It could allow a visitor to apprecate meaning as multiple, participatory and vast. It could also make the art experience removed from the language of taste and to that of content.
