• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Research collaborations across art and science are on the rise, but assumptions and metaphorical language around how these worlds operate and meet persist. Josie Chambers explores some of these conceits.

How do scientists and artists experience the world differently? I’ve asked this question many times to groups of researchers. For scientists, I often hear things like: “systematic, analytical, knowledge, observation, critical, distance, problem-oriented…”. For artists: “intuitive, emotional, subconscious, personal, interactive, playful, engaged…”.

Yet ensuing discussion always tears down these binaries, showing how both art and science are fueled by creativity, curiosity, and experimentation. And how most of these words cannot be confined to art or science alone; for example, art can be systematic, observational, problem-oriented; science can be interactive, engaged, emotional.

The rise of “art-science” collaborations seeks a deeper entanglement of these worlds, yet how they come together is not so straightforward. This piece is about the divergent (often hidden) metaphors that guide how artistic and scientific worlds relate and the possibilities they may create...Keep reading on Utrecht University.

Full story