Open Research Online Oro.Open.Ac.Uk

Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Encounters: Contemporary Art-Science Collaborations in the UK Thesis How to cite: Webster, Stephen (2008). Encounters: Contemporary Art-Science Collaborations in the UK. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2008 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000eb14 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk Encounters Contemporary Art-Science Collaborations in the UK PhD Thesis 2008 CAUTION CD-ROM StephenWebster The Open University 13 MAY2008 0 Abstract The Library f r Ji DONATION ýr 0ý This thesisis a studyof a group of scientistswho, in the years after 1995, undertook collaborativework with artists. Although the interface betweenart and sciencehas many historical aspects,they are not the main concernof this study. Attention is focused insteadon what thesecontemporary scientists may have gained from collaborating with artists. The recent growth of funding for such collaborations,for example from the Wellcome Trust, is discussed,and four projects are described.In a study of the relevant literature, links are found betweencontemporary work at the art-scienceinterface and recent attemptsto promotethe public engagementwith science.However the main theoretical drive of the thesis draws its structure from philosophical and sociological sources,principally the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). In interview most scientistswere explicit in their doubts that their artistic encounter could have any importancein their researchlife. Tacitly, however, they implied the opposite. The study finds several compelling casesof artists materially assisting scientific work. On a broader front, by examining the scientists' views on their professionalculture, the thesis revealsthat the scientistsuse the arts collaboration to explore views on a wide variety of metaphysicaland professionalissues. I argue that theseexplorations lead to changesin the way the scientistsapproach their professional life. An important themerunning through the thesis is the notion of ambivalence. Contradictionsare found betweenthe scientists' statedview of the method of science, 11 oOI31IIIIIIII0IýIIIIIIIIIIlill1111 and what they actually do. The scientistswere also anxious to describethemselves as people possessingsome autonomy. The thesis concludesby considering whether the art-sciencecollaboration should be encouragedboth for its creative potential, and for its ability to bring scientistsinto more reflective relationshipswith science,and with society. 111 Contents Abstract ii. Contents page iv. Preface and Acknowledgements vii. 1. Prologue 1 2. The Background 9 I. Introduction 9 II. The contemporaryart-science field 10 III. An overview of four projects 19 a) Mapping Perception 22 b) D'Alembert's Dream 25 c) The Fluent Heart 32 d) Gravity Zero 37 3. The Literature Review 44 1. Introduction 44 II. Contemporarytexts and themes 51 - the view from Nature 71 III. Themes in the academicliterature 74 - the view from Thomas Kuhn 77 - the view from two art historians 83 - the view from `sciencestudies' 91 IV. Collaborating in science 97 iv V. Summary and researchquestions 109 4. Methodology 111 1. Introduction 111 II. A model of enquiry 111 III. The methodology 121 IV. Planning the interviews 124 V. The interviews 129 VI. Preparing the analysis 136 5. Analysis of the interviews (A) 142 1. Introduction to chapters5 and 6 142 II. Denials 148 a) Views on the method of science 148 b) Views on the craft of science 156 c) The role of the hypothesis 158 III. Encounters 169 a) Introduction 169 b) Ian Thompson 170 c) Richard Wingate 172 d) Alf Linney 175 e) Philip Kilner 177 f) Some background concepts: 183 i Attitude to `evidence' 183 ii Attitude to reductionism 191 V g) Concluding comments 206 6. Analysis of the interviews (B) 208 I. The scientific self 208 II. Philosophical discussion 208 III. The shapeof the day 214 IV. The start of the collaboration 217 V. Are somescientists `adapted' for this work? 220 VI. The progressof a collaboration 225 VII. Costs, benefits, calculations 233 VIII. The issue of public engagement 241 IX The artists' voice 246 7. Concluding discussion 255 8. Reference List 271 Appendix 1 List of interviews 293 Appendix 2 Transcript of first interview with Richard Wingate 294 Appendix 3 Nature ReviewsImmunology paper on art-science collaborations (Webster 2005) Appendix 4 Full transcript (electronic format) vi Preface This dissertationis an investigation of the contemporaryart-science interface. The scopeof the subject matter is huge and diverse and calls on a potentially vast sphere of reference.I am from the outset searchingfor a focus, anxious to anchor my work within a recogniseddisciplinary framework. The framework I chooseis that provided by the philosophy of scienceand its recent manifestations,in particular the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). The current study set its boundariesin two main ways. First it concentratedeffort obtaining and analysing scientists' descriptionsof their collaborationswith artists. Secondlyit persistently mined the philosophy of scienceand the sociology of science as the best sourcesof theory for interpreting those accounts. Part of the interest of the project lay precisely in its potential unruliness. It would be possible perhapsto audit the last 10 years of UK-based art-sciencecollaboration, and attempt somekind of reductive survey, revealing for instancethe gender,age and discipline of the scientists,the practice of the artist, the type of product, and so on. This might be useful and interesting work, but it was not my preference. How I came to situatethis project forms the subject of the Prologue. Following David Silverman's suggestion(Silverman 2005, p305), this is a deliberately informal piece of writing. Quite early in the project I concluded there was neither an established vii background literature, nor an enduring `canon' of art-science products, to root my initial studies. Instead I organised a round of encounters with people, books and exhibitions. I could not help but feel that the way my research questions were did developing was alarmingly dependent on chance. Nevertheless a project emerge and the Prologue explains how. Acknowledgements My sincerethanks go to my interviewees.They inspired the project and were unfailingly helpful and interested.By agreeingto be identified within the thesis they made my task of representingtheir ideasmuch easier. My supervisorswere Dr Jeff Thomas (Open University) and Dr Ken Arnold (The Wellcome Trust). From the beginning of the project they have combined kindly support with intellectual attentiveness.They have my profound and lasting thanks. My employer Imperial College London has sponsoredmy studies,and has been generousin providing me time to pursuethe research.In particular I would like to thank Dr Nick Russell, Director of the ScienceCommunication Group at Imperial College. Dr Russell suggestedI should undertakedoctoral studies and was a steadfastadvocate. Dr Felicity Mellor, my colleagueat Imperial College, read the manuscript at a critical stage,and made valuable suggestions. Especial thanks are due to my wife Giovanna and my sonsLorenzo and Luca. They have enduredand encourageda distracted scholar in their midst. viii Chapter 1: Prologue In 1999 the Wellcome Trust held a conferenceto discussits Scienceon Stageand Screenawards scheme.I was invited to attend, and askedto preparea short essay reporting on the issuesraised (Webster 2000). With the heightenedsense of awarenessthat comes with such a brief, I rememberbeing alarmed at the very unsystematicnature of my reflections as the day went on. That is to say, although the conferencehad a single title, a single venue, and a single set of delegates,the various presentationsand questionsto my mind were entirely unbounded:synthesis seemed impossible. At the time I was a secondary school science teacher in London. Though I had sat on a Wellcome Trust arts panel, and was moreover an invited observerand essayist,once in the conferencehall I experienceda strong senseof alienation, of being in a world foreign to me. It was plain from the delegatelist that the majority of the delegates were artists or curators. But it was not mere numbersthat gave me my senseof estrangement.I felt I was not so much witnessing, as intruding upon, what I saw as the congenial exuberanceof the arts. In my essayI wrote: "... the dominant crowd is artistic. The interesting scarvesand good coats, slung so freely over the sombre seating,set the meeting apart from the averagescientific event. That friendly hug over there; a theatreproducer and an arts funder?" (Webster 2000, p7). When the talks and discussiongot under way I saw that while all speakerswere listened to politely, the most vigorous debateconcerned the contemporarysignificance of art-science encounters.This was very different to the situation in scientific culture which I felt was markedby a vivid interest in the details, but inclined to be mute when the discussionbecame more general.I wrote: "Artists like to chat and argue;they flee the easel,the computer and the rehearsalroom as soon as someonementions a drink or

Load more