2.2.3.2. Problem solving: Interdisciplinary context
Kluver interpreted, according to Bijvoet[107], the problem solving approach as a commonality or a conceptual space where artists and engineers could meet. In an interview with Garnet Hertz[108], Kluver defines problem solving as the motor for matching artists and engineers but he also acknowledges the differences in the type of electronic art and engineering problems; the artists bring in problems non-artists wouldn’t come up with. This provides a counter balance for the rational daily life problems of engineers; the artistic acquaintance broadens the engineer’s horizon. In the view of the Dutch philosopher of science, Petran Kockelkoren,[109] the engineer usually plays the problem solver in collaborations with artists in their university. One sees here the traditional picture of the engineer as a problem solver and the artist as a problem creator, where the latter doesn’t participate or engage in the technical development process.
For Snow and the Artists in Labs initiative, the collaboration with art offers solutions and opportunities for the communication problem of science. For example, artistic aesthetic visualisation proved itself, throughout history, as a valid method for packaging subjects that are difficult to communicate. Abstract scientific research for example, is communicated more easily by means of ‘appetising’ visualisation. According to Bijvoet[110] this goes back to the shift from empirical science to theoretical science. For example, in the case of the micro-world of quantum physics, predominantly a world of mathematical formulas, the researched matter is invisible to the human eye. Communicating and explaining the research in this field is complicated due to the abstract concept that is dealt with. In the accountability process towards the general public this is difficult to overcome. In this respect, artistic visualisations have been instrumental to explain complex and abstract or theoretic research trajectories. Marga Bijvoet[111] refers to György Kepes’ (founder of the Centre for Advanced Visual Studies at the MIT, USA) ideas that scientists were looking for new ways to visualise their abstract experiments and that it would be possible for artists to assist them to work out new visual models. This suggested role of the artist, as collaborator has been the subject of debate, particularly in Europe.
‘In many cases art in this context only serves as an illustration of the laws of perception, from chromatic analysis (Seurat) to stereo cineticism (Duchamp) so that we duly can call in question its legitimation as art.’ (P.Weibel) [112]
The Austrian / German Peter Weibel underlines this and re-directs the debate to the effects of collaboration on the arts. He states that the influence of science, from natural sciences to linguistics, social sciences, psychoanalysis, philosophy etc. on the arts is obvious to everyone, although it is much harder to bring forward the influence of art on science. Weibel investigates this in his essay ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Methodological Convergence of Art and Science’, where he starts from the point of view that convergence needs to be mutual. In his rhetoric about the convergence of art and science Weibel also refers to the earlier discussed attitude of science towards art as problem solver.
‘(..) not on the level of product science is influenced by art, not on the level on references, but on the level of methods, because any time when science develops the tendency that its methods become too authoritarian, become too dogmatic, science turns to art and to the methodology of art which is plurality of methods.’ (P. Weibel) [113]
The problem to which Weibel refers is an inherent aspect of the strict and narrow scientific research doctrines. The salvation role Weibel sees for the arts is rooted in the liberty or diversity of methods in the arts. His writings are in line with Feyerabend[114] who underlines the opportunities for science to engage with the multiple or diverse methods from the arts. Weibel takes Feyerabend’s ‘Anything Goes’ theory to a more concrete or evolved approach.
Bruno Latour firstly describes the role of the artistic expression in science[115] and religion as a mediation activity, a role which has been embedded in artistic practice throughout history. Latour refers to the functionality of a drawn map being among the best-known historical representations of territory and power zones. Latour has first directed us to the traditional role of the artist as problem solver or facilitator of science. He continues by pointing out the difficulty of the instrumental approach of science towards the arts as a tool for representation.
‘Everyone and every detail of what art is and what an icon is, an idol, a sight, a gaze, has been thrown into the pot to be cooked and burnt up in the past century of what used to be called modernists art.’ (B.Latour) [116]
Here Latour brings a problematic issue to the surface: the stereotype of art as a tool for communication does not match with the practice of most contemporary artists. Latour states that contrary to visualisation in science, the characteristic of visual art is that it is subjective and does not have the pretence of providing access to truth[117]. From the electronic art and design field, this has been affirmed in recent Web-based art, where numerous artists have re-worked and re-interpreted the use of scientific visualisation software. These mapping projects reveal the artistic interest in visualising irrational processes, or in mixing subjective and objective information. Mental maps, emotional maps, knowledge maps, and associative maps are among the frequently observed genres of art projects and supporting tools for design processes. Knowbotic Research’s ‘IO_Dencies’ [118] project, for example, visualises the results and the dynamics of public software agencies that deal with collaboration among urban developers and deprived inhabitants of the mega cities of Sao Paulo and Tokyo. The ‘DataCloud’ [119] project by ArchiNed and V2_Lab represent a slightly different approach to ‘knowledge maps’ and representation; the ‘DataCloud’ project was initially designed as a tool for urban developers and architects to gain access to ‘soft’ or personal information by means of an interactive visual dialogue with the inhabitants of a specific region. This process of visualising ‘invisible’ information illustrates the very different artistic approaches and critique of the aforementioned representation of the truth. This occupation and interest in process and experience is reflected in the aforementioned artistic interest in (visual) perception, communication and self-organising systems.
Latour gives this argument an interesting twist in that he suggests that scientific visualisation to take over this area of ‘representation’, as they own the computers and software to model and render their representations, while the artists are working on another area of visual and experiential electronic art forms. The above-mentioned examples from Knowbotic Research and ArchiNed / V2_Lab illustrate that this shift of interest, formally related to the two disciplines, has already taken place.
