ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to describe, analyse and categorize the literature on technoscience art in general and technoscience art collaborations in particular. I argue that the literature could be characterized by three thematic traditions: pioneer stories, writing aiming at mapping and categorizing, as well as those problematizing and contextualizing the field. Given that earlier research on technoscience art collaborations primarily consists of art historical and anthropological and ethnographic studies, I further discuss the relation between these approaches and intend to provide a connection between them. Whereas art historical studies are more concerned with issues concerning art history as a discipline, ethnographic studies tend to be more concerned with challenges faced by interdisciplinarity. Finally, I discuss the role of artistic research and art practice in future studies on the topic and emphasize the diversity of the literature on technoscience art, as well as the understanding of technoscience art collaborations as an interdisciplinary effort.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the valuable support by Per Lundin, the research seminar at the Department of Art History at Uppsala University and the Digital Creativity anonymous referees for their valuable comments to improve the original draft of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Anna Orrghen is a researcher and senior lecturer at the Department of Art History at Uppsala University, Sweden. She holds a PhD in media and communication studies from Stockholm University and has published on art and media, history of computer art, as well as art, science and technology.
Notes
1. Reichle pays particular attention to the contributions made by the scholars Bruno Latour and Donna J. Haraway.
2. Although Reichle (Citation2009), on one hand, pays attention to Popper’s introduction of the term technoscience art and uses the same time frame as Popper does, and, on the other hand, builds her understanding of the concept of technoscience mainly on Latour’s contribution, her study does not address the differences in the understanding of the concept of technoscience as it is expressed by Popper and Latour.
3. The literature on technoscience art contains a number of concepts for describing different aspects of technology and science in contemporary art such as ‘bio art’, ‘virtual art’ and ‘new media art’. Christiane Paul has paid attention to the terminology for technological art forms as ‘extremely fluid’ ([Citation2003] Citation2008, 7) and subject to several name changes.
4. Shanken pays attention to Henderson (Citation2004) as an exception.
7. For an updated analysis of the development of the studio laboratory, see Century (Citation2015).
8. The categorization of these traditions shows a striking resemblance with how the history of computing (Misa Citation2007) and the history of video art (Hedlin Hayden Citation2015) have been categorized.
9. See also Reichardt (Citation1969), and interviews, manifestos, excerpts from exhibition catalogues, articles and other documents republished in publications mainly belonging to the second tradition in this article (e.g. Davis Citation1973; Stiles and Selz Citation1996; Wardrip-Fruin and Montfort Citation2003; Shanken Citation2009).
10. Further examples document the activities at the Banff Centre for the Arts (Moser and MacLeod Citation1996), ZKM (Frieling and Daniels Citation1999), the art and science collaborative research laboratory SymbioticA (Catts and Bunt Citation2001), the scholar programme founded by Intel Art and Innovation Committee (IAEC) (Plautz Citation2005), the Swiss exchange program Artist-in-Labs (Scott Citation2006, Citation2010), the art–science center Le Laboratoire in Paris (Edwards Citation2008, Citation2010) and the Smithsonian Artist Research Fellowship (SARF) (Milosch Citation2013).
11. On the relation between art and the IT industry, see Mitchell, Inouye and Blumenthal (Citation2003).
12. See, for example, Stonyer et al. (Citation1986); Vesna and Gimzewski (Citation2005); Niemeyer (Citation2005); Seaman (Citation2005); Sorensen (Citation2005); Demain, Demain, and Palmer (Citation2006). According to Bijvoet (Citation1997, 78), Leonardo’s contributors during its first seven or eight years were either practising artists describing their own works or scientists and engineers contributing with general or theoretical articles, whereas there were hardly any contributions made by art historians or art theoreticians. Shanken (Citation2007, 46), on the other hand, means that it took until the mid-1990s before art historians and art theoreticians started to contribute to Leonardo.
15. The first time the question appears is in the article ‘Artist in Industry and the Academy: Collaborative Research, Interdisciplinary Scholarship and the Creation and Interpretation of Hybrid Forms’ published in Leonardo (2005). The same article also appears as a contribution in Scott (Citation2006). Thereafter, the question reappears in Shanken (Citation2007) and Shanken (Citation2010).
16. On the impact of the Vietnam War on the reception of art and technology, see Collins Goodyear (Citation2008).
17. Douglas Kahn (Citation2012) pays attention to the composer James Tenney as an artist in residence at Bell Telephone Laboratories, and argues for Tenney’s contribution to engineering; Paul Brown (Citation2008) claims that the early generative art at the Slade School of Fine Art contributed to the scientific development of computers; Stephen Jones (Citation2011, especially chapters 1 and 4) argues for the role of artists in the development of new technologies in Australia; and Anne Collins Goodyear (Citation2004, 628) argues that many collaborations supported by EAT led to engineering breakthrough and innovations.
19. Also Shanken (Citation2009) and Wilson (Citation2002) are using headlines underneath which they present collaborations.
20. On ‘co-production’ within STS, see for instance Jasanoff (Citation2004); on ‘co-construction’, see Oudshoorn and Pinch (Citation2003).
21. It might be interesting to note that the theme of the Media Art Histories conference taking place in 2015 was ‘Re-create: Theories, Methods and Practices of Research-creation in the Histories of Media Art, Science and Technology’; that it partly took place at a venue for conducting research-based creative practice in technoscience art, Hexagram; and that the anthropologist Georgina Born gave one of the keynote speeches.
Reichle, Ingeborg. 2009. Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art. Translated by Gloria Custance. Wien: Springer. Paul, Christiane. [2003] 2008. Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson. Paul, Christiane. [2003] 2008. Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson. Henderson, Linda Dalrymple. 2004. “Editor’s Introduction: I. Writing Modern Art and Science – An Overview; II. Cubism, Futurism, and Ether Physics in the Early Twentieth Century.” Science in Context 17 (4): 423–466. doi: 10.1017/S0269889704000225 Jones, Stephen. 2011. Synthetics: Aspects of Art and Technology in Australia, 1956–1975. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Moraga, Eva. 2008. “The Computation Center at Madrid University, 1966–1973: An Example of True Interaction Between Art, Science, and Technology.” In Place Studies in Art, Media, Science and Technology: Historical Investigations on the Sites and the Migration of Knowledge, edited by Andreas Broeckmann and Gunalan Nadarajan, 47–53. Weimar: VDG. Klütsch, Christoph. 2012. “Information Aesthetics and the Stuttgart School.” In Mainframe Experimentalism: Early Computing and the Foundations of Digital Arts, edited by Hannah B. Higgins and Douglas Kahn, 65–89. Berkeley: University of California Press. Orrghen, Anna. 2015a. “ICT in art in Sweden, 1996–2014: Tool, Medium and Theme.” In History of Nordic Computing 4, 4th IFIP WG 9.7 Conference, HiNC 4, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 13–15, 2014, Revised Selected Papers, edited by Christian Gram, Per Rasmussen, and Søren Duus Østergaard, 78–89. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Century, Michael. 2015. “‘Pathways to Innovation in Digital Culture’ Revisited.” Unpublished paper presented at Re-create 2015: The 10th Anniversary and Sixth International Conference on the Histories of Media, Art, Science and Technology, Montréal, November 5–8. Accessed, October 14, 2016. http://pl02.donau-uni.ac.at/jspui/handle/10002/687. Harris, Craig. 1999b. “The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Artist-in-residence Program Landscape.” In Art and Innovation: The Xerox Artist-in-residence Program, edited by Craig Harris, 2–11. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Shanken, Edward A. 2005. “Artist in Industry and the Academy: Collaborative Research, Interdisciplinary Scholarship and the Creation and Interpretation of Hybrid Forms.” Leonardo 38 (5): 415–418. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.5.415 Zwijnenberg, Robert. 2009. “Art, the Life Sciences, and the Humanities: In Search of a Relationship.” In Art in the Age of Technoscience. Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art, edited by Ingeborg Reichle, xiv–xxix. Wien: Springer. Naimark, Michael. [2003] 2004. Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Money: Technology-based Art and the Dynamics of Sustainability: A report for Leonardo Journal supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Accessed October 10, 2016. www.naimark.net. Naimark, Michael. [2003] 2004. Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Money: Technology-based Art and the Dynamics of Sustainability: A report for Leonardo Journal supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Accessed October 10, 2016. www.naimark.net. Born, Georgina, and Andrew Barry. 2013. “Art-science: From Public Understanding to Public Experiment.” In Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, edited by Andrew Barry and Georgina Born, 247–272. Oxfordshire: Routledge. Miller, Arthur I. 2014. Colliding Worlds: How Cutting-edge Science Is Redefining Contemporary Art. New York: W. W. Norton. Century, Michael. 2015. “‘Pathways to Innovation in Digital Culture’ Revisited.” Unpublished paper presented at Re-create 2015: The 10th Anniversary and Sixth International Conference on the Histories of Media, Art, Science and Technology, Montréal, November 5–8. Accessed, October 14, 2016. http://pl02.donau-uni.ac.at/jspui/handle/10002/687. Misa, Thomas J. 2007. “Understanding ‘How Computing Has Changed the World’.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 29 (4): 52–63. doi: 10.1109/MAHC.2007.4407445 Hedlin Hayden, Malin. 2015. Video Art Historicized: Traditions and Negotiations. Farnham: Ashgate. Reichardt, Jasia. 1969. Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts. New York: Studio International. Critical Art Ensemble. 2008. “The Spectacle of Public Health under the Sign of Bioterror.” In Art in the Biotech Era, edited by Melentine Pandilovski, 34–40. Adelaide: Experimental Art Foundation. Stiles, Kristine, and Peter Selz. 1996. Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wardrip-Fruin, Noah, and Nick Montfort, eds. 2003. The New Media Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Shanken, Edward A. 2009. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon. Moser, Mary Anne, and Douglas MacLeod, eds. 1996. Immersed in Technology: Art and Virtual Environments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Frieling, Rudolf, and Dieter Daniels. 1999. Medien Kunst Interaktion. Die 80:er und 90er Jahre in Deutschland. Wien: Springer. Catts, Oron, and Stuart Bunt. 2001. “SymbioticA, the Art and Science Collaborative Research Laboratory.” In Takeover: Wer macht die Kunst von morgen: Who’s Doing the Art of Tomorrow, Ars Electronica 2001, edited by Gerfried Stocker and Christine Schöpf, 132–135. Wien: Springer. Plautz, Dana. 2005. “New Ideas Emerge When Collaboration Occurs.” Leonardo 38 (4): 302–309. doi: 10.1162/0024094054762016 Scott, Jill, ed. 2006. Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry. Wien: Springer. Scott, Jill, ed. 2010. Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins. Wien: Springer. Edwards, David. 2008. Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edwards, David. 2010. The Lab: Creativity and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Milosch, Jane. 2013. “Contemporary Art Informed by Science: The Smithsonian Artist Research Fellowship.” In Analyzing Art and Aesthetics, edited by Anne Collins Goodyear and Margaret A. Weitekamp, 260–267. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. Mitchell, William J., Alan S. Inouye, and Marjory S. Blumenthal. 2003. Beyond Productivity: Information, Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Committee on Information Technology and Creativity; Computer Science and Telecommunications Board; Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council. Stonyer, Andrew, Ken Ford, Malcom Hughes, and Roger Linford. 1986. “Solar-powered Kinetic Sculpture: A Collaborative Educational Experiment.” Leonardo 19 (1): 35–38. doi: 10.2307/1578299 Vesna, Victoria, and James K. Gimzewski. 2005. “NANO: An Exhibition of Scale and Senses.” Leonardo 38 (4): 110–111. doi: 10.1162/0024094054762070 Niemeyer, Greg. 2005. “PING: Poetic Charge and Technical Implementation.” Leonardo 38 (4): 312–313. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.312 Seaman, Bill. 2005. “The Hybrid Invention Generator.” Leonardo 38 (4): 315. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.315 Sorensen, Vibeke. 2005. “Global Visual Music Jam Project.” Leonardo 38 (4): 316. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.316 Demain, Erik D., Martin L. Demain, and A. Laurie Palmer. 2006. “The Helium Stockpile: A Collaboration in Mathematical Folding Sculpture.” Leonardo 39 (3): 233–235. doi: 10.1162/leon.2006.39.3.233 Bijvoet, Marga. 1997. Art as Inquiry: Toward New Collaborations Between Art, Science, and Technology. New York: Peter Lang. Shanken, Edward A. 2007. “Historicizing Art and Technology: Forging a Method and Firing a Canon.” In Media Art Histories, edited by Oliver Grau, 43–70. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Klüver, Billy, and Robert Rauschenberg. [1967] 2009. “The Purpose of Experiments in Art and Technology.” In Art and Electronic Media, edited by Edward Shanken, 267–268. London: Phaidon. Klüver, Billy, and Robert Rauschenberg. [1967] 2009. “The Purpose of Experiments in Art and Technology.” In Art and Electronic Media, edited by Edward Shanken, 267–268. London: Phaidon. Shanken, Edward A. 2009. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon. Broeckmann, Andreas, and Gunalan Nadarajan, eds. 2008. Place Studies in Art, Media, Science and Technology: Historical Investigations on the Sites and the Migration of Knowledge. Weimar: VDG. Higgins, Hannah B., and Douglas Kahn, eds. 2012. Mainframe Experimentalism: Early Computing and the Foundations of Digital Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scott, Jill, ed. 2006. Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry. Wien: Springer. Shanken, Edward A. 2007. “Historicizing Art and Technology: Forging a Method and Firing a Canon.” In Media Art Histories, edited by Oliver Grau, 43–70. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Shanken, Edward A. 2010. “The History and Future of the Lab: Collaborative Research at the Intersections of Art, Science and Technology.” In The Future of the Lab 2010, edited by Clare Butcher and Angela Plohman, 21–33. Eindhoven: Baltan Laboratories. Collins Goodyear, Anne. 2008. “From Technophilia to Technophobia: The Impact of the Vietnam War on the Reception of “Art and Technology”.” Leonardo 41 (2): 169–173. doi: 10.1162/leon.2008.41.2.169 Kahn, Douglas. 2012. “James Tenney at Bell Labs.” In Mainframe Experimentalism: Early Computing and the Foundations of Digital Arts, edited by Hannah B. Higgins and Douglas Kahn, 131–146. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brown, Paul. 2008. “From Systems Art to Artificial Life: Early Generative Art at the Slade School of Fine Art.” In White Heat Cold Logic: British Computer Art 1960–1980, edited by Paul Brown, Charlie Gere, Nicholas Lambert, and Catherine Mason, 275–289. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jones, Stephen. 2011. Synthetics: Aspects of Art and Technology in Australia, 1956–1975. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins Goodyear, Anne. 2004. “Gyorgy Kepes, Billy Klüver, and American Art of the 1960s: Defining Attitudes Toward Science and Technology.” Science in Context 17 (4): 611–635. doi: 10.1017/S0269889704000286 Scott, Jill, ed. 2010. Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins. Wien: Springer. Stettler, René. 2006. “Perception-Translation-Transformation.” In Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry, edited by Jill Scott, 36–42. Wien: Springer. Zschocke, Nina. 2010. “Art and Science Research Teams? Some Arguments in Favour of a Culture of Dissent.” In Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins, edited by Jill Scott, 68–81. Wien: Springer. Seaman, Bill. 2005. “The Hybrid Invention Generator.” Leonardo 38 (4): 315. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.315 Steinheider, Brigitte, and George Legrady. 2004. “Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Digital Media Arts: A Psychological Perspective on the Production Process.” Leonardo 37 (4): 315–321. doi: 10.1162/0024094041724436 Shanken, Edward A. 2009. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon. Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Art: Intersection of Art, Science, and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge. Oudshoorn, Nelly, and Trevor Pinch. 2003. How Users Matter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Additional information
Funding
This article was written as a part of the research project ‘The Art of Co-Production: Collaborations Between Artists, Scientists and Engineers, Sweden 1967–2009’, funded by the Swedish Research Council [Dnr 421-2010-1531].