Surveying the literature on technoscience art: from pioneer stories to collaborations between artists, scientists and engineers as the object of study

References

• Allen, Rebecca. 2005. “The Emergence Project: The Bush Soul.” Leonardo 38 (4): 314. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascott, Roy. 2011. “Preface.” In Explorations in Art and Technology, edited by Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds, v–vi. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, Andrew, and Georgina Born. 2013. “Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences.” In Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, edited by Andrew Barry and Georgina Born, 1–56. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. “Logics of Interdisciplinarity.” Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49. doi: 10.1080/03085140701760841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfiore, Eleonora. 2004. “Auditing Culture: The Subsidised Cultural Sector in the New Public Management.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2): 183–202. doi: 10.1080/10286630042000255808
   Google Scholar
• Beloff, Laura, Erich Berger, and Terike Haapoja. 2011. Field Notes: From Landscape to Laboratory. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Bioart.
   Google Scholar
• Bertók, Imrich, and Jozef Jankovic. 1986. “A Collaborative Investigation of the Line: Interactive Computer-aided Drawings.” Leonardo 19 (1): 27–30. doi: 10.2307/1578297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, Michael, and Henrik Karlsson, eds. 2011. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bijvoet, Marga. 1997. Art as Inquiry: Toward New Collaborations Between Art, Science, and Technology. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bilda, Zafer, Brigid Costello, and S. Amitani. 2006. “Collaborative Analysis Framework for Evaluating Interactive Art Experience.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 2 (4): 225–238. doi: 10.1080/15710880601008026
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, T., and J. Jefferies. 2006. “Collaboration: A Personal Report.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 2 (4): 259–263. doi: 10.1080/15710880601008075
   Google Scholar
• Born, Georgina, and Andrew Barry. 2010. “Art-science.” Journal of Cultural Economy 3 (1): 103–119. doi: 10.1080/17530351003617610
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Paul, Charlie Gere, Nicholas Lambert, and Catherine Mason, eds. 2008. White Heat Cold Logic: British Computer Art 1960–1980. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Judy, and Steve Cunningham. 2007. “A History of ACM SIGGRAPH.” Communications of the ACM 50 (5): 54–61. doi: 10.1145/1230819.1230839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunt, Stuart. 2008. “The Role of the Scientist and Science in Bio-art.” In Art in the Biotech Era, edited by Melentine Pandilovski, 62–67. Adelaide: Experimental Art Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Candy, Linda, S. Amitani, and Z. Bilda. 2006. “Practice-led Strategies for Interactive Art Research.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 2 (4): 209–223. doi: 10.1080/15710880601007994
   Google Scholar
• Candy, Linda, and Ernest Edmonds. 2002. Explorations in Art and Technology. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Candy, Linda, and Ernest Edmonds. 2011. Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner. Faringdon: Libri Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Century, Michael. 1999. Pathways to Innovation in Digital Culture. Montréal: Centre for Research on Canadian Cultural Industries and Institutions/Next Century Consultants.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, Janet, Roanna Gonsalves, and Noreen Metcalfe. 2011. “Bridging the Two Cultures: The Fragility of Interdisciplinary Creative Collaboration.” In Collective Creativity: Collaborative Work in the Sciences, Literature and the Arts, edited by Gerhard Fischer and Florian Vassen, 156–176. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critical Art Ensemble. 1994. The Electronic Disturbance. New York: Autonomedia.
   Google Scholar
• Critical Art Ensemble. 1996. Electronic Civil Disobedience and Other Unpopular Ideas. New York: Autonomedia.
   Google Scholar
• Critical Art Ensemble. 2001. Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media. New York: Autonomedia.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Cubitt, Sean, and Paul Thomas, eds. 2013. Relive: Media Art Histories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• da Costa, Beatriz, and Kavita Philips, eds. 2008. Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, Douglas. 1973. Art and the Future: A History/Prophecy of the Collaboration Between Science, Technology and Art. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietrich, Frank. 1986. “Visual Intelligence: The First Decade of Computer Art.” Leonardo 19 (2): 159–169. doi: 10.2307/1578284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EAT. [1966] 2003. ““9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering”. Program.” In The New Media Reader, edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 214–221. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• EAT [1967] 2003. “Press Release.” In The New Media Reader, edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, Ernest. 2006. “New Directions in Interactive Art Collaboration.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 2 (4): 191–194. doi: 10.1080/15710880601008091
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, Ernest, and Mike Leggett. 2010. “How Artists Fit into Research Processes.” Leonardo 43 (2): 194–195. doi: 10.1162/leon.2010.43.2.194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmonds, Ernest, Alastair Weakly, Linda Candy, Mark Fell, Roger Knott, and Sandra Pauletto. 2005. “The Studio as Laboratory: Combining Creative Practice and Digital Technology Research.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63 (4–5): 452–481. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, David. 2008. Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, David. 2010. The Lab: Creativity and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fernández, María. 2008. “Gordon Pask: Cybernetic Polymath.” Leonardo 41 (2): 162–168. doi: 10.1162/leon.2008.41.2.162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourmentraux, Jean-Paul. 2006. “Internet Artworks, Artists and Computer Programmers: Sharing the Creative Process.” Leonardo 39 (1): 44–50. doi: 10.1162/002409406775452177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke, Herbert W. 1971a. Computer Graphics: Computer Art. London: Phaidon.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, Herbert W. 1971b. “Computers and Visual Art.” Leonardo 4 (4): 331–338. doi: 10.2307/1572504
   Google Scholar
• Frieling, Rudolf, and Dieter Daniels. 1999. Medien Kunst Interaktion. Die 80:er und 90er Jahre in Deutschland. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz, Darko. 2008. “Vladimir Bonacic: Computer-generated Works Made Within Zagreb’s New Tendencies Network (1961–1973).” Leonardo 41 (2): 175–183. doi: 10.1162/leon.2008.41.2.175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz, Darko. 2011. Mapping the Beginnings of Computer-generated Art in the Netherlands. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://darkofritz.net/text/DARKO_FRITZ_NL_COMP_ART_n.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, Beat. 2006. “Science in Trouble? Art Brings Hope.” In Artists-in-lab: Processes of Inquiry, edited by Jill Scott, 47–49. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gere, Charlie. 2010. “Research as Art.” In Art Practice in a Digital Culture, edited by Hazel Gardiner and Charlie Gere, 1–7. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Gere, Charlie. 2012. “Minicomputer Experimentalism in the United Kingdom from the 1950s to 1980s.” In Mainframe Experimentalism: Early Computing and the Foundations of Digital Arts, edited by Hannah B. Higgins and Douglas Kahn, 112–127. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glauser, Andrea. 2010. “Formative Encounters: Laboratory Life and Artistic Practice.” In Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins, edited by Jill Scott, 12–22. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Grau, Oliver, ed. 2007a. Media Art Histories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grau, Oliver. 2007b. “Introduction.” In Media Art Histories, edited by Oliver Grau, 1–14. England: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, Rachel. 2000. “Web Work: A History of Internet Art.” ArtForum 38: 162–167, 190.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan^©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, Craig, ed. 1999a. Art and Innovation: The Xerox Parc Artist-in-residence Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hedlin Hayden, Malin. 2015. Video Art Historicized: Traditions and Negotiations. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewett, Thomas. 2002. “An Observer’s Reflections: The Artist Considered as Expert”.” In Explorations in Art and Technology, edited by Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds, 137–144. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, Hannah B., and Douglas Kahn, eds. 2012. Mainframe Experimentalism: Early Computing and the Foundations of Digital Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hostettler, Sylvia. 2010. “Light Reactions: Dimensions of Apparent Invisibility.” In Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins, edited by Jill Scott, 132–137. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Shih Chieh. 2013. “The Influence and Inspiration from Taking Part in the Smithsonian Artist Research Fellowship Program.” In Analyzing Art and Aesthetics, edited by Anne Collins Goodyear and Margaret A. Weitekamp, 268–277. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, Stephen. 2008. “The Confluence of Computing and Fine Arts at the University of Sidney, 1968–1975.” 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, 55–74. Weimar: VDG.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, Stephen. 2011. Synthetics: Aspects of Art and Technology in Australia, 1956–1975. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kac, Eduardo, ed. 2007. Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Billy. [1967] 2009. “Theater and Engineering: An Experiment; Notes by an Engineer.” In Art and Electronic Media, edited by Edward Shanken, 266–267. London: Phaidon.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Billy. [1972] 2003. “The Pavilion.” In The New Media Reader, edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 223–226. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Knowlton, Ken. 1972. “Collaborations with Artists—A Programmer’s Reflections.” In Graphic Languages: Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference on Graphic Languages, edited by F. Nake and A. Rosenfeld, 399–418. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Krauß, Werner. 2015. “Linking Sediment and Sentiment: On Observing a Sci-art Project.” Journal of Science Communication 14 (1): C04, 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. [1987] 1999. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, James. 2005. “‘Being in Between’ Art-science Collaborations and a Technological Culture.” Social Analysis 49 (1): 141–160. doi: 10.3167/015597705780996246
   Google Scholar
• Léger, Marc James, ed. 2014. The Idea of the Avant Garde: And What It Means Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malina, Roger. 2006. “Welcoming Uncertainty: The Strong Case for Coupling Art to Science and Technology.” In Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry, edited by Jill Scott, 15–23. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Manovich, Lev. 2003. “New Media from Borges to HTML.” In The New Media Reader, edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 13–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, Catherine. 2008. A Computer in the Art Room: The Origins of British Computer Arts 1950–1980. Hindringham: JJG.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Arthur I. 2014. Colliding Worlds: How Cutting-edge Science Is Redefining Contemporary Art. New York: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Moser, Mary Anne, and Douglas MacLeod, eds. 1996. Immersed in Technology: Art and Virtual Environments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Nechvatal, Joseph. 2004. “Origins of Virtualism: An Interview with Frank Popper Conducted by Joseph Nechvatal.” CAA Art Journal 63 (1): 62–77. doi: 10.1080/00043249.2004.10791116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, Greg. 2005. “PING: Poetic Charge and Technical Implementation.” Leonardo 38 (4): 312–313. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orrghen, Anna. 2011. “Collaborations Between Engineers and Artists in the Making of Computer Art in Sweden 1967–1986.” In History of Nordic Computing 3: Third IFIP WG9.7 Conference, HiNC3, Stockholm, Sweden, October 18–20, 2010: Revised Selected Papers, edited by John Impagliazzo, Per Lundin, and Benkt Wangler, 127–136. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Orrghen, Anna. 2015b. “Driven by Visualization: Sten Kallin’s Collaborations with Astrid Sampe, Sture Johannesson, and Mats Amundin as Explorations of Computer Technology.” Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History 84 (2): 93–107. doi: 10.1080/00233609.2015.1034171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, Thomas. 2013. “Inter That Discipline!.” In Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, edited by Andrew Barry and Georgina Born, 82–98. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, Nelly, and Trevor Pinch. 2003. How Users Matter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, Christiane. [2003] 2008. Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Penny, Simon. 2010. “Twenty Years of Artificial Life Art.” Digital Creativity 21 (3): 197–204. doi: 10.1080/14626261003654640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penny, Simon. 2013. “Art and Robotics: Sixty Years of Situated Machines.” AI & Society 28 (2): 147–156. doi: 10.1007/s00146-012-0404-4
   Google Scholar
• Plautz, Dana. 2005. “New Ideas Emerge When Collaboration Occurs.” Leonardo 38 (4): 302–309. doi: 10.1162/0024094054762016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, Frank. 1968. Origins and Development of Kinetic Art. Translated by Stephen Bann. London: Studio Vista.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, Frank. 1987. “Technoscience Art: The Next Step.” Leonardo 20 (4): 301–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, Frank. 1993. Art of the Electronic Age. London: Thames & Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, Frank. 2007. From Technological to Virtual Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prophet, Jane, and Sian Hamlett. 2000. “Sordid Sites: The Internal Organs of a Cyborg.” In Digital Desires: Language, Identity and New Technologies, edited by Cutting Edge, the Women’s Research Group, 25–33. London: Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Prophet, Jane, and Nina Wakeford. 2010. “A Conversation about Models and Prototypes.” In Art Practice in a Digital Culture, edited by Hazel Gardiner and Charlie Gere, 43–59. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Reichardt, Jasia. 1969. Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts. New York: Studio International.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, Ingeborg. 2009. Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art. Translated by Gloria Custance. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, Margit, ed. 2011. A Little Known Story about a Movement, a Magazine, and the Computer’s Arrival in Art: New Tendencies and Bit International, 1961–1973. Karlsruhe: ZKM/Center for Art and Media.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, Chris. 2015. Alien Agency: Experimental Encounters with Art in the Making. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sandin, Daniel J., Tom DeFanti, Louis H. Kauffman, and Yvonne Spielmann. 2006. “The Artist and the Scientific Research Environment.” Leonardo 39 (3): 219–221. doi: 10.1162/leon.2006.39.3.219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlick, Tamar. 2005. “The Critical Collaboration Between Art and Science: An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump and the Ramifications of Genomics for Society.” Leonardo 38 (4): 323–329. doi: 10.1162/0024094054762160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schöpf, Christine. 2004. “The Making of … .” In Ars Electronica 1979–2004: The Network for Art, Technology and Society: The First 25 Years, edited by Hannes Leopoldseder, Christine Schöpf, and Gerfried Stocker, 18–24. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, Jill, ed. 2006. Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, Jill, ed. 2010. Artists-in-labs: Networking in the Margins. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Seaman, Bill. 2005. “The Hybrid Invention Generator.” Leonardo 38 (4): 315. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Shanken, Edward A. 2008. “The Reception and Rejection of Art and Technology: Exclusions and Revulsions.” Leonardo 41 (2): 160–161. doi: 10.1162/leon.2008.41.2.160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanken, Edward A. 2009. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sholette, Gregory. 2005. “Disciplining the Avant-Garde: The United States Versus the Critical Art Ensemble.” Circa 112: 50–59. doi: 10.2307/25564316
   Google Scholar
• Smite, Rasa, Eric Kluitenberg, and Raitis Smits, eds. 2013. “Techno-Ecologies.” Acoustic Space No. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Smite, Rasa, Armin Medosch, and Raitis Smits, eds. 2014. “Techno-ecologies II: Media Art Histories: ReNew.” Acoustic Space No. 12.
   Google Scholar
• Smite, Rasa, Raitis Smits, and Armin Medosch, eds. 2016. “Open Fields: Art and Science Research Practices in the Network Society.” Acoustic Space No. 15.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen, Vibeke. 2005. “Global Visual Music Jam Project.” Leonardo 38 (4): 316. doi: 10.1162/leon.2005.38.4.316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stettler, René. 2006. “Perception-Translation-Transformation.” In Artists-in-labs: Processes of Inquiry, edited by Jill Scott, 36–42. Wien: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stiles, Kristine, and Peter Selz. 1996. Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stimson, Blake, and Gregory Sholette. 2007. “Introduction: Periodizing Collectivism.” In Collectivism after Modernism: The Art of Social Imagination after 1945, edited by Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette, 1–15. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, Lucy A. 2007. Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Grant D. 2014. When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Turney, Jon, ed. 2006. Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis, and Action. London: The Wellcome Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Vesna, Victoria, and James K. Gimzewski. 2005. “NANO: An Exhibition of Scale and Senses.” Leonardo 38 (4): 110–111. doi: 10.1162/0024094054762070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wands, Bruce. 2006. Art of the Digital Age. London: Thames and Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Wardrip-Fruin, Noah, and Nick Montfort, eds. 2003. The New Media Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, Stephen. 2005. “Art and Science Collaborations in the United Kingdom.” Nature Reviews Immunology 5 (12): 965–969. doi: 10.1038/nri1730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, Stephen. 2006. “Art, Science, and the Public.” In Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis, and Action, edited by Jon Turney, 74–79. London: The Wellcome Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Stephen. 1999. “Reflections on PAIR.” In Art and Innovation: The Xerox Artist-in-residence Program, edited by Craig Harris, 186–208. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Art: Intersection of Art, Science, and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Stephen. 2010. Art + Science Now: How Scientific Research and Technological Innovation Are Becoming Key to 21st-Century Aesthetics. London: Thames & Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Yun. 2011. “Investigating Collaboration in Art and Technology.” In Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner, edited by Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds, 122–135. Faringdon: Libri Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Yun, and Linda Candy. 2006. “Investigating Collaboration in Art and Technology.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 2 (4): 239–248. doi: 10.1080/15710880601008059
   Google Scholar
• Ziarek, Krzysztof. 2004. The Force of Art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar