Skip to main content

Building up the Basics: An Introduction to ArtScience Collaboration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 663 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities ((PSBAH))

Abstract

In a time of rediscovery of art and cultures of antiquity, artists started out to employ scientific principles and philosophy in order to experiment with daily processes of perception. Artists do not see their roles anymore in the depiction of religious motives, but want to contribute to the exploration of nature or even outplay it with their work. Based in this new self-understanding of art and a process of societal change, a curious scene can be observed: in 1412, the well-known Florentine craftsman Filippo Brunelleschi stands in front of the Florentine Dome looking at the Baptistery through a strange wooden construction, inviting passersby to look through and to see a perspectively correct representation of the Baptistery. In this way, Brunelleschi demonstrates his newly developed method of central perspective to his fellow citizens. He developed this method from his architectural and sketching point of view by investigating geometry and ways of seeing with the goal to create the illusion of depth in paintings. This is the environment where crossing borders between disciplines to create advancement in different fields is rediscovered—and the fruitful environment where the often-cited genius of Leonardo da Vinci is born and where he goes through an apprenticeship as painter, in a world where artists start to cross borders and do not want to be part of this reductionist guild of artisans of highly professions. Openness and observation of the world are important for these artists to create their progressive artworks, which drives them to employ methods from natural sciences like mathematics and investigations into the body as basic fundament of their artistic production. This led not only to artistic development but also to scientific investigations, or to visionary ideas about flying machines, as those demonstrated by Leonardo da Vinci.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   79.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, Jack Ox (2014) relates different kinds of outcomes like visualization of scientific work or highly interesting artscience projects for different kinds of intensities of the collaboration process.

  2. 2.

    STEM refers to disciplines from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

  3. 3.

    STEAM refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics.

  4. 4.

    Cybernetic Serendipity. The Computer and the Arts. (1968) Edited by Jasia Reichardt. London: Institute of Contemporary Art, New York/Washington/London: Praeger Publishers.

  5. 5.

    Software, Information Technology: Its Meaning for Art. (1970) Curated by Jack Burnham. New York: Jewish Museum.

References

  • Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2007). Determinants of Impact: Towards a Better Understanding of Encounters with the Arts. Cultural Trends, 16(3), 225–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijvoet, M. (1997). Art as Inquiry. Toward New Collaborations Between Art, Science, and Technology. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2002). Explorations in Art and Technology. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (2008). Artscience: Creativity in the Post-Google Generation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. (1999). Art and Innovation. The Xerox PARC Artist-in-Residence Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, M. (2016). Structural Intuitions. Seeing Shapes in Art and Science. Charlottesville/London: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, N. (1969a). Art and Technology I – Steps Toward a New Synergism. IEEE Spectrum, 6, 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, N. (1969b). Art and Technology II – A Call for Collaborations. IEEE Spectrum, 6, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malina, R. (2011). Non-Euclidian Translation: Crossing the River Delta from the Arts to the Sciences and Back Again. Leonardo Reviews Quarterly, 1(3), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malina, R. (2012). Is Art-Science Hogwash?: A Rebuttal to Jean-Marc Levy Leblond. Leonardo, 39(1), 66–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ox, J. (2014). Art-Science Is a Conceptual Blend. Leonardo, 47(5), 424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, Z. (2015). Peripheral Vision: Bell Labs, the S-C 4020, and the Origins of Computer Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., Pathak, A., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2017). Review of Studies Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Integrating Arts, Music, Performing, Crafts and Design into Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medical Education. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. White Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanken, E. A. (2002). Art in the Information Age: Technology and Conceptual Art. Leonardo, 35(4), 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleigh, C., & Craske, S. (2017). Art and Science in the UK: A Brief History and Critical Reflection. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 42(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sontag, S. (1967). Against Interpretation. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G. D. (2014). When the Machine Made Art. The Troubled History of Computer Art. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topper, D. R., & Holloway, J. H. (1980). Interrelationships Between the Visual Arts, Science and Technology: A Bibliography. Leonardo, 13, 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topper, D. R., & Holloway, J. H. (1985). Interrelationships of the Arts, Sciences and Technology: A Bibliographic Update. Leonardo, 18(3), 197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijck, J. (2003). After the “Two Cultures”: Toward a “(Multi)cultural” Practice of Science Communication. Science Communication, 25(2), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Schnugg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schnugg, C. (2019). Building up the Basics: An Introduction to ArtScience Collaboration. In: Creating ArtScience Collaboration. Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04549-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics