author: Stevan Vuković
The ‘Age of the Corona’ has introduced both artists and scientists, just like the ordinary world, into what is called a ‘media-intensive environment’. The limitation of physical movement and face-to-face meetings have begun to be replaced massively by relying on various teletechnologies. Meetings and gatherings were transferred to various web platforms, while for cultural and artistic events, forms of presentation were sought through which they could be held without the immediate physical presence of the audience. This exhibition, which was already prepared to open on the national ‘Science Day'[1], which falls on July 10, i.e. Nikola Tesla’s birthday (as opposed to the world one, which is exactly five months later[2]) still it did not change its form, but only postponed until later. This was done with the intention that the works presented on it correspond to the physical space of the building, and to enable an adequate experience of the audience in it; the range of experience is inevitably significantly narrowed during remote reception, and no matter how successfully the works are transposed via cameras and microphones, and adapted to viewing via the network, interference from the space from which the audience perceives them cannot be avoided.
As in other exhibitions and performative events that were realized in the Balkan Cinema area during the previous year, an important aspect of the installation is precisely its ambient setting. It is achieved by adapting the given space to the optimal viewing and experiencing of the works, as well as the works to the specifics of the space, which is quite unique in the local environment, especially if you take into account all its segments that are very different in terms of atmosphere, at the same time completely separated from each other and well connected. On the other hand, when designing exhibitions, artistic projects are not forced, which would be done on purpose only to emphasize and visually improve, or to hybridize and in different ways re-label the found ambient units. Instead, the search is for already existing works that could only be developed to their full capacity with adequate production of the installation, and at the same time potentially conceptually upgraded through the relationship with the thematic framework in which they are placed, and other works with which they are exhibited together. In this sense, the selection of these works was guided by the imperative to provide them with adequate space.
The works presented on this occasion are the result of the artist’s search for an expression that, at least implicitly, includes a relationship with science and technology. They are not interactive, do not have network components, and do not introduce virtual, augmented or mixed realities[3], and some of them do not even use high-tech procedures. If they use some kind of illusionism, it is not a goal in itself, nor is it introduced just to question the way certain scientific or technological principles work, but rather serves the purpose of developing a narrative or demonstrating a clearly postulated idea of the author. The focus of the works are either specific episodes from the history of science, in the form of mythical narratives about scientists, scientific procedures and inventions, or the contexts of the implementation of procedures used in scientific research, with the testing of atypical consequences that these implementations can lead to, or simply contemporary digital technology is used in the formal shaping of audio-visual works. It is important to note that, even when they were the result of collaboration with scientists, the works were developed and presented from the perspective and within the frame of reference of contemporary art.
The Tesla coil[4] was used as a source of light and sound in the work performed at the closing of the exhibition, as part of a complex visual-musical-stage performance. Tesla’s fictionalized biography served as a motive base for a fanciful cartoon animation, and sentences built from commonplaces of popular myths about Tesla became material for an ambient installation using only text and light. Some of the works dealt with science and technology at a slightly higher level of generality, and they thematized and problematized ethical issues in conducting scientific experiments and the functionality of using sophisticated software. Some artists only reached for non-standard tools for the realization of work, and magnetic brain stimulation, EEG devices and facial recognition systems were used in the production of works as well as standard programs for 3D and 2D character animation and video compositing. In any case, no matter how different they are, these works are the result of re-examination of the author’s often quite ambivalent attitudes towards the experiments that take place in the field of science and technology, and those that are constitutive of the field of contemporary visual art.
According to the classification of Merlin Stember[5], these works would mostly be cross-disciplinary, in the sense that through them one discipline is seen from the perspective of another, that is, scientific achievements and their applications in the development of technology are presented from the perspective of contemporary visual art. Unlike approaches that could be called intradisciplinary, they reach beyond the boundaries of the art world, while, at the same time, unlike interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, they unambiguously result in the full realization of an artistic vision, and not just a composite work whose artistic aspect is only one of several relevant ones. Those works certainly point to the meeting place of two horizons of imagination and two types of creativity, in an attempt to somehow contribute to the mutual connection of what Charles Snow named more than half a century ago as “two equal aspects of man’s symbol-making activity”, which condition “two cultures”[6], between which there is a “gap of mutual misunderstanding”.[7]These cultures are imported mainly through new technologies, as new testing grounds for the creativity of both scientists and artists.
The gap between the scientific and artistic horizons of imagination and the type of creativity not only continuously exists, but it is no smaller today than it was half a century ago, when Charles Snow wrote about it, and named it, or even a full century and a half ago, when Robert Hunt [8] wrote about him in other words. This was pointed out by the book of theoretical physicist Tom McLeish from last year[9], as well as the discussion that took place around it this summer and led him to redact to some extent, and to some extent to additionally explain, and even strengthen his views.[10] ]In that revision, he clearly demarcated his controversial views, among other things, from the views of Johannes Lehmann and Bill Gaskins[11], who, according to him, claimed that artistic practice provides an exemplary model for scientific creativity, with its heuristic practices of action. through “trial and error, self-criticism, openness to chance”[12]. McLeish argued that such practices already “find a home in scientific research”, and create “specific scientific contexts”[13] for innovation and creativity, as well as their horizon of imagination, and that today quite parallel approaches to creativity are developing in art and science.
If McLeish’s views can stand, for which there is a lot of empirical support on both sides of the described gap, and they have already been developed during current discussions, further questions open up: is it still possible to compare these types of innovation and creativity in some way, if so, on what grounds, and whether it is possible to combine them within joint projects. Based on an analyzed sample of twelve selected works from the local art scene, which make up this exhibition, and all of which were previously presented in thematic frameworks determined by the relationship between science and art, and in the design of which, or at least the production, there was a collaboration between scientists, technicians and artists, although on different levels, imagination was established as a possible basis for connection. So, as far as artists are concerned, they were not attracted so much by concrete scientific research programs and their practical contributions to the development of society, but rather by the horizons of possibilities that science opens by constantly reconceptualizing the frames of the reality in which we are immersed, which, according to Nelson Goodman, provides them with the same role as art, which is engagement in “creating worlds”.[14]
The logic of the constant creation of worlds, as something that brings science closer to art, was once defended by Paul Feyerabend with the thesis that the complete dominance of a type of scientifically supported reality “must not lead us to assume that in the end we have reached the ‘true’ reality”, but only that ” other forms of reality temporarily do not have… those who defend them”, or that there is simply “no interest in their production.” [15] The ways in which the artists whose works are represented in this exhibition met and often confronted the dominant categories of reality are grouped into the following categories: fragmentation of experience under the influence of technology (Ćuzović, Ćirić and Savić); examining behavior amplified by technology (Jovićević and Trtovac); research on the experience of the human body and its replicas (Gajić and Teofilović); mythical narratives about scientists and the logic of scientific discovery (Brkić and Ličina); as well as a cynical examination of the limitations of artificial intelligence (Kojić, Aleksić), and a normative reflection on the ethics of scientific research practice (Atoski & al.). Of course, these categories are only constructs with a heuristic role.
Sources:
- Based on the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette,” No. 62/2010), Science Day in Serbia is celebrated annually on July 10.
- The idea of establishing a “World Science Day,” to be celebrated globally on the same day, was proposed at the World Science Conference in Budapest in 1999, with November 10 suggested as a potential date. UNESCO adopted this proposal, establishing “World Science Day for Peace and Development” (UNESCO 31 C/Resolution 20), which was first celebrated globally on November 10, 2002. In Serbia, this day has been celebrated since 2011, in addition to the national Science Day on July 10, marking Nikola Tesla’s birthday, as per the government’s decision.
- Virtual reality works were part of a special exhibition held from September 3 to 10 during the 13th edition of the Beldocs festival at the Balkan Cinema, which was also postponed from May to September. The works of Jan Kounen, Diego Kompel, Ana Knežević, and Milad Tangashir were showcased.
- Tesla’s coil is a high-frequency transformer operating at high voltage. Nikola Tesla used this transformer for experimental purposes, including the generation of lightning, research on electric lighting, phosphorescence, X-ray production, electrotherapy, wireless transmission of electrical and radio signals, and remote energy transmission.
- Marilyn Stember: “Advancing the Social Sciences through the Interdisciplinary Enterprise,” in The Social Science Journal 28 (1), 1991, pp. 1–14.
- Aleksandar I. Spasić: “Preface,” in C. P. Snow: The Two Cultures and A Second Look, Belgrade: Narodni Univerzitet Braća Stamenković, 1971, p. 7.
- C. P. Snow: The Two Cultures, p. 26.
- Robert Hunt: The Poetry of Science: Or the Studies of the Physical Phenomena of Nature, Boston, MA: Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln, 1850.
- Tom McLeish: The Poetry and Music of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
- Tom McLeish: “Taking the Discussion Onward,” in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45:1, 2020, pp. 51–70.
- Johannes Lehmann & Bill Gaskins: “Learning Scientific Creativity From The Arts,” Palgrave Commun 5, 96, 2019.
- Tom McLeish, cited work from 2020, p. 65.
- Ibid.
- Nelson Goodman: Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2013, p. 133.
- Paul Feyerabend: Science as Art, Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1994, p. 40.