Re: <nettime> Locating ArtScience

[Marco Donnarumma <lists@marcodonnarumma.com>]

Dear nettimers,

I'm new to this list, and although I've read this whole thread and although
I know the work of some of those involved in this discussion, please pardon
my ignorance of any previous "background story" that may have happened.

First, due thanks to Eric and everyone involved in what is a greatly
interesting discussion. As an artist and scholar working in an eerie area
folding performing art, sound art, body theory, computation and physiology
into each other, I have been pondering on issues similar to those raised by
Eric for some time.

I use the term "eerie" on purpose, in the sense that Mark Fisher elaborates
so well in his The Weird and the Eerie: Something where there should be
nothing. This is, in my view, a precise definition of the particular form
of art-science inter- cross- trans-disciplinarity - where science, as Eric
cleverly pointed out, is not only natural sciences, but humanities,
philosophy, etc..

At the core of art-science lies its intrinsic impossibility to exist as a
whole, unified and pure practice on its own. Art-science, at its best, is a
bastard set of methodology, which seldom respects conventions and
traditions. It creates something in a phantasmal zone that "should not" be
there in the first place. This is its biggest potential, especially when
coupled with cultural criticism (I prefer cultural criticism to the rather
abused and somewhat now-emptied notion of "politics" in use today).

Crucial art-science works "haunt" us, rather than entertain or dictate us.

Now, contextualising art-science within the Anthropocene is problematic.
First, the effort to situate art-science in what is a markedly
Western-white-male theory about how other Western-white-male people has
brought down hell on Earth risks to, at once, reinforce the grave issues of
that theory and disappear in its muddy puddles of Western guilt. We don't
want that.

Rather, as Florian indicated, it seems more useful to let art-science
overcome a particular geo-cultural-political context so as to acknowledge
its development - what Eric calls "becoming" - throughout human time.  From
Pytaghora and Leonardo through feminist and cyberfeminist art, and from
CERN today through what the future will bring us. We need to acknowledge
art-science for what it is, a practice of invention, creation and challenge
that has not developed in a void, but it has actively contributed to shape
human culture, and consequently even the way we talk about it right now.

Why is this important? First, this opens our eyes onto the crucial and
still painfully overlooked role that feminist art and feminist scholar
literature has played in tearing down the separation of human and Nature,
of subject and object, of my body and your body. It struck me how, with the
exception of the reply by Annie (thank you Annie for bringing up the
topic), this thread is populated only by males - and yes, me being another
one of them.

Why is that?

Equally concerning is the almost exclusively White male literature being
referenced so far (again, with the exception of Annie's reply). How can we
talk about closing the distance between human and nature, or discuss
subjectivity and its role in art-science without working through the
feminist literature that contributed so largely to this kind of discourse
exactly because of its own marginalisation at hand of White male scholars?

We can be more humble and ambitious, I believe. In this sense, while I
support the idea of reinvigorating the figure of the "amateur" in the sense
that Eric has fleshed out, I wouldn't want us to reject or elide the
importance of thorough expertise and skills. Especially here, where we
discuss how art-science should be politically inflected.

My point is that if one lacks an in depth knowledge of a scientific or
technological method or phenomenon, it is much harder to develop a strong
criticality towards it. While the "amateur" has the advantage of operating
as an outsider, she or he can only produce and convey a limited critique,
if not a superficial one. And, unfortunately, this is what happens too
often in current art-science projects, as others have noted in this thread.
On the other hand, in depth expertise in a scientific field does not,
obviously, ensure critical skills. If the chief aim is to develop a
critical practice, one needs to gain granular knowledge of all fields one
chooses to engage with.

Superficial critique is anti-critique. It denies itself.

Finally, following the cue by Kristoffer, I wanted to very briefly mention
that here in Berlin - where I am based - together with local independent
art organizations and individual artists, we have formed a formal working
group to lobby our local government towards an official recognition of what
we call "hybrid arts", artistic practices that create zone of contagions
across disciplines, DIY, bioart, digital rights, cultural criticism, body
and technology, sound art, noise, etc...

Although the history of the group dates many years back, the current group
is working  since a year, and we are now in conversation with politicians
and other similar working groups. Among our goals, there is also the idea
to reunite our community and attempt - perhaps for the first time - to
define our own identity as a movement, a movement which has existed in
Berlin since long time and which is continually developing new forms of
cultural practices that make the city what it is.

wishing you all very well,

--
Marco Donnarumma, Ph.D.

*Performing bodies, sound and machinesUniversität der Künste Berlin*
http://marcodonnarumma.com

Next
Dec 15 | XTH Sense improv. w/ Scald Process @ Holotone Showcase, Arena,
Berlin
Feb 03 | New performance premiere @ commissioned by CTM Festival, Berlin
Feb 23-25 | Amygdala MKII @ Dortmund Conference on Digitality and Theater

New Essay
"Beyond the Cyborg: Performance, attunement and autonomous computation"
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316989653_Beyond_the_Cyborg_Performance_attunement_and_autonomous_computation>

Studio
Einsteinufer 43, Raum 212
10587 Berlin, DE
m: +4915221080444 <+49%201522%201080444>




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: