Send Yasmin_discussions mailing list submissions to
yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://ntlab.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
yasmin_discussions-request@ntlab.gr
You can reach the person managing the list at
yasmin_discussions-owner@ntlab.gr
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Yasmin_discussions digest..."
THIS IS THE YASMIN-DISCUSSIONS DIGEST
Today's Topics:
1. WWWWASP Discussion. First week summary. (YASMIN DISCUSSIONS)
2. Re: WWWWASP Discussion (YASMIN DISCUSSIONS)
3. Re: WWWWASP Discussion (YASMIN DISCUSSIONS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:36:51 +1100
From: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr>
To: yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] WWWWASP Discussion. First week summary.
Message-ID:
<mailman.15.1572873269.1824.yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr@ntlab.gr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Dear Yasminers,
We have completed our first discussion week, where the invited discussants
have sent us some of their thoughts in bits and pieces format, about the
present strategies of the art and science interaction. I would like to
summarize here some important statements from their interesting comments:
- As a first note, I would like to highlight that their comments
come from different research specializations, different cultures and
different geographical zones. This represents a self-contained exchange,
and I really would like to thank to all of them their words and
availability. Just this kind of sharing between borders, countries,
languages, and self-experiences, is an accomplished objective.
- Vicky Sowry, from Australia, started our discussion with very
interesting points. She addressed some of the peculiarities when
participating in art/sci residences. Being one of the fortunate
participants in this kind of residences, I know that Vicky?s words are very
important: ?Accidental and random connections can take a project in
entirely new directions. The other thing is that, if you know what the
outcomes are going to be at the outset ? our residencies are not for you?.
Her statement was kindly illustrated with some examples. I think this is
kind of crucial practice, because here we are not speaking about absence of
productivity. Instead, we are supporting and allowing the space for an
alternative conception of productivity. So, in these residences we are
opening new spaces for multiple creativity scenarios, where the official
disciplinary spaces are much more reticent to do it.
- Jadwiga Charzy?ska, from Poland, follow the discussion
introduction reviewing the exciting example of the ART+SCIENCE MEETING
project. She gives us the great opportunity to briefly walk through the
project, making special attention to the general culture connections. I
have felt very important her statement about social implications: ?Artists
and scientist are working together in matters of extending spectrum of
explorations ? their researches involve ethical and social problems.?
Etical and social problems can serve as a mutual framework for our
interdisciplinary collaborations. In many cases, these side (but always
present) implications are not clearly addressed in some of our research
expertise, and when we meet in this broad-spectrum relationship, we make it
more visible. In my opinion, our art/sci interaction helps to enhance our
societal commitment.
- Next, Gustavo Ariel Schwartz, from San Sebastian, in Spain, but
with main roots in Argentina, give us the opportunity to review some of the
challenges that he found when organizing these interdisciplinary forums. In
his case, he directs the ?Mestizajes program?, where science and writing
concepts and experiences are mixed to propose an alternative understanding
of creativity. However, he pointed towards a general problem in our
interdisciplinary spaces. The usual spaces for these collaborations are
mainly science research scenarios, where artists are engaged to the science
research, but it is much more difficult to see the opposite case. This can
be related to the point that Vicky address, ?What kind of productivity is
accepted in our disciplinary methodologies? ?Is this biased by any societal
requirement?
- On last Friday we had the opportunity to follow one step forward
in our discussion with Salome Cuesta, from Spain, but this time just in the
Mediterranean coastal side, Valencia. She used an interesting workshop in
Paris to emphasize in two key concepts: educational spaces (at different
stages) and working methodologies, as for example workshop oriented group
learning. In my opinion this is an example of how our micro-actions are
starting to re-design our methodologies, as all these new spaces that are
flouring nowadays (DIY garage, Hackathons, Citizen Science, Maker Spaces,
?) are getting accepted and in many cases included in the official
institutions. May be here the problems is the question of accessibility:
who is being able to participate in these new scenarios?
- Next step comes from ?pure? intermixed voice, Joao Silveira, from
Brasil, but currently working in France, with dancing and science
pharmacist background, highlighted an important statement. In his words:
?Should Art/Sci be inside a ?silo??? Here there is not a single answer, and
hopefully we will share our thoughts in the following weeks. So, is it
possible to define a new discipline which inner nature is
multidisciplinary? Did this happen before with other disciplines? Is this
easily happening today within our networked and collaborative disciplinary
maps?
In summary, in our first week we have opened some of the important topics
and interesting questions of this mixed and elastic field, which comes from
thoughts and words from different parts of the planet and different
personal experiences. But we still have two of our invited discussants
introductory posts to publish and read, which it would happen in our next
week.
At the same time, today I would like to invite to all Yasmin community to
start to send us your reflections and thoughts. This is an entirely open
debate, which it will be strongly enriched with comments from all possible
edges, spaces, cultures and disciplines.
Last but not least, I would like to remember to all of you the basic
protocol to send to us your contributions. You need to send an e-mail to
the following direction (: yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr) with ?WWWWASP
Discussion? as subject. We would like to ask you to include the name to the
post author that you are commenting or answering at the beginning, and we
will be pleased if you can remove any previous text in your e-mail. This
will help a lot to the general text readability for our digest mode daily
review.
Best wishes,
Guillermo.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 00:51:49 +0100
From: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr>
To: yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] WWWWASP Discussion
Message-ID:
<mailman.16.1572874044.1824.yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr@ntlab.gr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Dear Yasminers,
I would like to jump on Joao statement. I believe this is a
crucial statement.
He writes : "Should ArtSci be inside a ?silo??
On one hand, to be inside a silo could be prejudicial for
the transdisciplinary philosoph. On the other hand, we have
in the contemporary history many examples of well-developed
disciplines that were born from the fusion of other areas as
Biochemistry (biology + chemistry)" and he lists several of
this "duo".
This relates to the question I am asking myself at the
moment: what would we teach if we were teaching art-science
? A methodology?
As far as I know in the various existing programmes, people
are not teaching artscience, they are teaching bioart,
physics and art, etc. = some specific scientific disciplines
in relation to art.
The thing is that neither "art" nor "science" is a
"discipline", both include many "disciplines" as Joao
himself points by listing several combined scientific
disciplines.
I would like to throw another ball in the discussion and to
everyone here: why do we so much want that something like an
artscience field comes into being? an artscience discipline?
Why do we want those creations to be in universities ? Why
do we want to "institutionalize" everything?
Could the answer just be: to get the damn funding 'cause if
you don't wear a label and fit into a box it's kinda hard to
get the coins?
I have so much questions ... but I am not even sure I am
allowed to post that early in the discussion!
Annick
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:09:49 +0100
From: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr>
To: yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] WWWWASP Discussion
Message-ID:
<mailman.18.1572909754.1824.yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr@ntlab.gr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
That's an interesting point. It's possible that arts-science is not yet
established because the volume of putative value is not obvious to deciders;
in value we can put "papers and citations", "economical impact (university
fees, patents, industrial shift...)", "social impact", "cultural an
influence impact".
So: have you tried to create such department in your own university ? If it
failed, what was the dean arguments ?
Mathieu P
Le sam. 2 nov. 2019 ? 00:23, YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr>
a ?crit :
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> We follow one step forward in our first week introduction to our discussion
> topic. Today, Joao Silveira, from Brazil, send us some clues about his
> thoughts.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Guillermo.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Joao Silveira Introductory text
>
>
> As mentioned, there are some residency programs connecting artists and
> scientists around the world as well as more and more interactions inside
> the universities. However, ArtScience is usually a peripheral activity and
> still far from institutionalized activity. This opens the question: Should
> ArtSci be inside a ?silo?? On one hand, to be inside a silo could be
> prejudicial for the transdisciplinary philosophy and in the end, ArtSci
> could end just as another ?discipline?. On the other hand, we have in the
> contemporary history many examples of well-developed disciplines that were
> born from the fusion of other areas as Biochemistry (biology + chemistry);
> Astrophysics (Astronomy + Physics); Biophysics (biology + Physics);
> bioengineering (biology + engineering), etc. So, why not ArtScience as an
> established area of practice, research, and education?
>
>
> Joao Silveira
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
> http://ntlab.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
http://ntlab.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr
------------------------------
End of Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1
*************************************************
