Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Creative Practices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Da Vinci

  • 1116 Accesses

Abstract

From the earliest human creative expressions there has been a relationship between art, technology and science. In Western history this relationship is often seen as drawing from the advances in both art and science that occurred during the Renaissance , and as captured in the polymath figure of da Vinci . The twentieth century development of computer technology, and the more recent emergence of creative practice-led research as a recognized methodology, has lead to a renewed appreciation of the relationship between art, science and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This debate can be seen in the broader literature on Artistic Research, creative practice-led research, for example Working papers in Art and Design Research, Art&Research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods. This concern is also echoed in literature focused on innovation and research & development. For example NESTA reports by Bakhshi and Throsby (2010), Bakhshi et al. (2011).

  2. 2.

    In this chapter the term Artistic Research will be used to refer to creative practices undertaken in the context of research, which is drawn from the work of Coessesn et al. (2009).

  3. 3.

    For example the Australian Excellence in Research policy that recognizes creative works as research output.

  4. 4.

    As documented by Bridle at the following URL: http://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com/.

  5. 5.

    Computer Graphics is an examples of a field that has been the result of interdisciplinary research—from the early computer artists and researchers working together to develop the potential for new visual technology, to the contemporary animation studios working across Film, TV and Computer games pushing boundaries of the field through creative application.

  6. 6.

    For example the computer art collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum London, see Beddard (2009).

  7. 7.

    Here Carter is referencing Barthes’ Mythologies (1973).

  8. 8.

    This is the basis of much of the work on Creative Industries and Innovation, see Bakhshi et al. (2010; 2011).

  9. 9.

    Performative is used here in respect to concepts of performativity and practice, with origins in the work of Austin (1962). Similarly Pickering (2010) describes science as performative.

  10. 10.

    A similar argument is made in relation to art within industry innovation pathways, where creativity and artistic practices become an input which is easily instrumentalised in the logics of innovation, and as a result rendered invisible, or “eliminated”.

  11. 11.

    This is with the exception of some forms of citizen science, and the current movement towards “removing the walls” of the science lab that can be seen in many institutions.

  12. 12.

    See the project web site: http://beatrizdacosta.net/Pigeonblog/statement.php.

  13. 13.

    For example Julian Bleeker’s “A Manifesto for Networked Objects—Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things” (2006) See http://dm.ncl.ac.uk/courseblog/files/2010/04/whythingsmatter.pdf.

  14. 14.

    See for example Ox (2013) paper “What Is the Challenge of Art/Science Today and How Do We Address It?”.

  15. 15.

    See the SymbioticA web site: http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/.

  16. 16.

    For example Dr Svenya Kratz who completed her practice-led PhD working at the Institute for Health and Biotechnology Innovation at the Queensland University of Technology.

  17. 17.

    See the Tissue Culture Art Project web site: http://tcaproject.org/.

  18. 18.

    See the Victimless Leather web site: http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/vl/vl.html.

  19. 19.

    Critical Design is best captured in the practice of Dunne and Raby (1999; 2001).

  20. 20.

    For a list of Artists see http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/residents.

  21. 21.

    SymbioticA run undergraduate and postgraduate courses on bio-art and Art Science practices, which are detailed at the following URL: http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/courses.

  22. 22.

    This run through the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant scheme, which involve research conducted with an industry partner. For the Synapse Linkage scheme the industry partner is the Australia Council for the Arts. http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/artforms/experimental-arts/opinion_piece._synapse_sharing_partnerships.

  23. 23.

    See the Brighthearts web site: http://georgekhut.com/brighthearts/.

  24. 24.

    For example Brighthearts was included in, and won, the 2012 New Media Art Awards at Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane Queensland. See http://www.qagoma.qld.gov.au/exhibitions/past/2012/national_new_media_art_award_2012.

  25. 25.

    The work has also been included in CUSP; Designing the Next Decade curated by the Australian Center for Design. Similarly the work of Mari Vilonaki discussed in this paper is also included in the same exhibition. See http://www.cusp-design.com/.

  26. 26.

    See the Arts and Health Foundation Award 2012 http://www.creativepartnershipsaustralia.org.au/arts/awards/2012-abaf-award-winners.html.

  27. 27.

    Ibid. 25.

  28. 28.

    See the Australian Center for Field Robotics web site: http://www.acfr.usyd.edu.au/.

  29. 29.

    See the artists web site: http://mvstudio.org/work/fish-bird-cicle-b-movement-b/.

  30. 30.

    See the Creative Robotics Lab web site: http://www.niea.unsw.edu.au/about/niea-groups/creative-robotics-lab.

  31. 31.

    See the National Institute for Experimental Arts web site: http://www.niea.unsw.edu.au/.‎

  32. 32.

    See for example Roger Malin’s work Chair of Arts and Technology at the University of Texas http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/malina/ and the Science Engineering Art and Design (SEAD) developments http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/cdash/ and http://seadnetwork.wordpress.com/, the Leonardo Education and Art forum http://www.leonardo.info/isast/LEAF.html , the liberal arts and engineering programs at California Polytechnic State University http://laes.calpoly.edu/, and the Rhode Island School of Design’s STEM to STEAM program http://stemtosteam.org/.

References

  • Ascott, Roy. 2006. Engineering Nature: Art & Consciousness in the Post-biological Era. Bristol UK: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT). 2008. Synapse – Art Science Collaborations. http://www.synapse.net.au/. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshi, Hasan, and Throsby, David. 2010. Culture of Innovation, London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts (NESTA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshi, Hasan, Freeman, Alan and Potts, Jason. 2011. State of Uncertainty, London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts (NESTA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Andrew. Born, Georgina, and Weszkalnys, Gisa. 2008. Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society Vol. 37, No. 1: 20–49. doi:10.1080/03085140701760841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, Roland. 1973. Mythologies. St Albans, Herts.: Paladin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddard, Honor. 2009. Computer Art at the V&A. V&A Online Journal no. 2. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/research-journal/issue-02/computer-art-at-the-v-and-a/. Accessed September 10 2013.

  • Bennett, Jill. 2012. What is Experimental Art. Studies in Material Thinking, Vol. 8. http://www.materialthinking.org/papers/88. Accessed 8 September 2013.

  • Bleecker, Julian. 2006. A Manifesto for Networked Objects—Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things. http://dm.ncl.ac.uk/courseblog/files/2010/04/whythingsmatter.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2013.

  • Bolt, Barbara. 2001. Materialising Practices: The Work of Art as Productive Materiality. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolt, Barbara. 2004. Art Beyond Representation: The Performative Power of The Image. London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, Georgina, and Barry, Andrew. 2010. Art-Science. Journal of Cultural Economy Vol. 3 No. 1: 103–119. doi:10.1080/17530351003617610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourriaud, Nicolas. 2002. Relational Aesthetics. France: Les presses du réel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridle, James. 2011. Waving at the Machines. http://www.webdirections.org/resources/james-bridle-waving-at-the-machines. Accessed 6 September 2013.

  • Bridle, James. 2012. “#sxaesthetic report”. http://booktwo.org/notebook/sxaesthetic/. Accessed 6 September 2013.

  • Brook, Donald. 1974. About the Australian Experiemental Art Foundation. http://aeaf.org.au/about/aboutaeaf.html. Accessed 7 September 2013

  • Brook, Donald. 2012. Experimental Art. Studies in Material Thinking, Vol. 8. https://www.materialthinking.org/papers/101. Accessed 8 September 2013.

  • 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, ed. Gere, C., Brown, P., Lambert, N. and Mason, C. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, I. 2012. Cognitive context: exploring psychophysiological correlates of emotive and cognitive variables in computer based tasks. PhD thesis, Australian Centre for Field Robotics, The University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, David. 2008. Introduction: ‘Leonardo’ and Leonardo Da Vinci. Leonardo Vol. 41, No. 1: 36–38. doi:10.2307/20206514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Paul. 2004. Material thinking: the theory and practice of creative research. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catts, Oran, and Ionat Zurr. n.d. The Tissue Culture and Art Project. http://tcaproject.org/. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Catts, Oran, and Ionat Zurr. 2000. Semi-Living Steak. http://tcaproject.org/projects/victimless/steak. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Catts, Oran, and Ionat Zurr. 2003. Disembodied Cusine. http://tcaproject.org/projects/victimless/cuisine Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Catts, Oran, and Ionat Zurr. 2004. Victimless Leather. http://tcaproject.org/projects/victimless/leather. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Centre for Social Robotics (CSR). n.d. About Us. http://www.csr.acfr.usyd.edu.au/about.htm. Accessed September 11, 2013.

  • Coessens, Kathleen, Darla Crispin, and Anne Douglas. 2009. The Artistic Turn: a Manifesto. Brussel: Leuven University Press, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In Handbook of Creativity, ed. R. J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa, Beatriz. 2006. PigeonBlog. http://beatrizdacosta.net/Pigeonblog/index.php. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • DiSalvo, Carl. 2012. Adversarial Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Anthony. 1999. Hertzian Tales. Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby. 2001. Design Noir: the Secret Life of Electronic Objects. London: August Media Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertas, Atila. 2010. Understanding of Transdiscipline and Transdisciplinary Process. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science Vol. 1, No. 1:54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Michael. 2011. Assembling Social Futures: The Centre for Social Robotics. Creative Industries Innovation Centre. http://www.creativeinnovation.net.au/Media/docs/CSR-4f2e1256-8ae5-4491-9680-5e04f3d69fe0-0.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Freyer, Conny, and Troika (Firm). 2008. Digital by Design: Crafting Technology for Products and Environments. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, Paul. 1985. Problems of Empiricism: Volume 2: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, Paul. 1985. Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Volume 1: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, Paul. 1996. “Theoreticians, Artists and Artisans.” Leonardo Vol. 29, No. 1: 23–28. doi:10.2307/1576272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, Tony. 2009. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gere, Charlie. 2008. New Media Art and the Gallery in the Digital Age. In New Media in the White Cube and Beyond Curatorial Models for Digital Art, ed. by Christiane Paul. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guattari, Felix. 1995. Chaosmosis: an Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies Vol. 14, No. 3:575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khut, George Poonkhin, Angie Morrow, and Melissa Yogui Watanabe. 2011. The BrightHearts Project: a New Approach to the Management of Procedure-Related Paediatric Anxiety. OZCHI Workshops Program, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lelas, Srdjan. 1993. Science as Technology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 44, No. 3: 423–442. doi:10.2307/688014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, Timothy. Ed. 1998. Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication. California, US: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, Lev. 2001. Post-media Aesthetics. DisLocations. Karlsruhe: ZKM / Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, Lev. 2003. Introduction. in The New Media Reader, ed. Wardrip-Fruin, Noah, and Montfort, Nick. Cambridge, 13–25. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael A.J. 2000. What makes transdisciplinarity succeed or fail? First Report. In Transdisciplinarity: recreating integrated knowledge ed. Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantelle, Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically. London – New York: Verso, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ox, Jack, and Richard Lowenberg. 2013. What Is the Challenge of Art/Science Today and How Do We Address It? Leonardo Vol. 46, No. 1: 2–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Christiane. 2003. Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, Andrew. 2010. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Frank. 1993. Art of the Electronic Age. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, Mark. 2013 Cultured Beef Project Maastricht University. http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/show/id=6866536/langid=42 Accessed September 20, 2013.

  • Quaranta, Domenico. 2010. Media, New Media, Postmedia. Milan: Postmedia Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, Horst WJ, and Melvin M Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2: 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rush, Michael, and Michael Rush. 2005. New Media in Art. 2nd ed. World of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvera Tawil, D. 2012. Artificial skin and the interpretation of touch in human-robot interaction. PhD thesis, Australian Centre for Field Robotics, The University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, Richard. 2008. The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanken, Edward. 2009. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Jeffery. 1998. Convergence of Art, Science and Technology. In Art @ Science, ed. Editors Sommerer, Christa, and Laurent Mignonneau, 162–166. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. 1964. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The University of Western Australia (UWA). SymbioticA. http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/. Accessed September 10, 2013.

  • Waddington, C. H. 1968. New Visions of the World. Leonardo Vol. 1, No. 1: 69–75. doi:10.2307/1571907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, C. H. 1969. Behind Appearance: a Study of the Relations Between Painting and the Natural Sciences in This Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wands, Bruce. 2006. Art of the Digital Age. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, Anne-Marie. 2006. Ontological Designing. Design Philosophy Papers no. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: a Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, Terry, and Carlos F. Flores. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: a New Foundation for Design. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velonaki, Mari. 2012. Multi-Objective Evaluation of Cross-Disciplinary Experimental Research. Studies in Material Thinking, Vol. 8. https://www.materialthinking.org/papers/100. Accessed 8 September 2013.

  • Velonaki, M., Scheding, S., Rye, D. & Durrant-Whyte, H. 2008a. Shared spaces: media art, computing and robotics. ACM Computers in Entertainment. Vol. 6, No. 4: 51:1–51:12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velonaki, M., Rye, D., Scheding, S. & Williams, S. 200b8. Fish-Bird: A perspective on cross- disciplinary collaboration IEEE MultiMedia, January–March:10–12.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Gavin Sade

Authors
  1. Gavin Sade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gavin Sade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Newton Lee Laboratories, LLC, Tujunga, California, USA

    Newton Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sade, G. (2014). Experimental Creative Practices. In: Lee, N. (eds) Digital Da Vinci. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0965-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0965-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0964-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0965-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation