Dear all,
Sorry to enter on this discussion, as it is finished, but i´m wirtting a
conference contribution and i´m been reading the discussion. I will try to
be concise.
I´m agree that the two cultures and the third proposal from C.P. Snow may
be is mainaining the diferences, better than collapsing the disciplines. I
like a lot the idea of the network of disciplines, better than the tree of
disciplines. In this sense disciplines helps to us to delimite concepts and
focus on them, but at the same time the network helps to us to exchange.
So, there are two actions there, expertice and exhange, both of them
important. The network methapor helps to the idea of the exchange.
I´m been thinking of another ideas, but i keep the one from Brian:
Activism. When you add the next A for the SEAD, to be SEAAD, i think this
is another important motor. The two culture discurse from C.P. Snow is an
academic discurse, listened in conferences and articles, but, may be, it is
not translated to real day activities. So, Action/Activism is an
alternative to this discurse, where the word, as Brian point with brilliant
way, has no discipline limitations, but where all disciplines could meet.
This kind of action creates real spaces, with real interaction with people,
and is far from academicism. So, the network of disciplines, from Roger
Idea, with the Activism from Brian i think it works with power.
Science popularization, could be one of the links to the research activity
to be part of this activism on the network of disciplines. In my poitn of
view, only if the science popularization creates spaces to be shared with
other ideas. So, science popularization not as a transfer of knoledge in
unique direction, sicence popularization as an exchange space for experts,
doing specific actions (activism).
Best,
Guillermo.
2013/8/30 roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Todd Siler <toddsiler@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > Thanks for setting in motion a chain of thought-provoking emails (below).
> > They've triggered countless nerve/cell-assemblies that make me remember
> > and wonder aloud once again: Why not adventure beyond weighing and
> > measuring Art's contributions to the advancement of
> > science-technology-civil society? Why not focus on exploring the spectrum
> > of learning experiences these curious artscience collaborations afford us
> > that are invaluable? I trust we'll quickly progress beyond these
> > ever-expanding acronyms for STEM, STEAM, STEAAM, SHTEAM that distract us
> > from doing what comes so naturally to many inquisitive minds who *think
> > beyond categories* and simply enjoy the challenge of working
> > collaboratively to achieve a shared, common goal.
> >
> > It seems we're all groping to answer the same questions about human
> > creativity that many of us transdisciplinary "artscientists" (aka
> > integrative thinkers) posed decades ago as natural born "metaphormers"
> > (lifelong learners, creators, discoverers, inventors, and innovators).
> > Perhaps, we should look more closely at our myriad *definitions* of art
> > and science, which tend to determine our *experiences* of these two
> > interrelated domains of explicit, tacit and implicit knowledge (see
> > attached pdf).
> >
> > In an earlier email, you stated that "there are numerous modes of art
> > science collaboration." Indeed, there are, just as there are numerous
> > expressions and embodiments of these collaborations. Unfortunately,
> > many are overlooked or ignored for reasons that are too deep to detail in
> > this email.
> >
> > I'd like to briefly comment on two mutual interests that remain top of
> > mind: (1) art science work that leads to scientific production, and (2)
> > instructional technology or procedures that can be used to train people
> > how to collaborate on art science projects.
> >
> > Concerning (1): the collaboration I've been engaged in for the past 18
> > months with Geoffrey Alan Ozin aims for both scientific production (e.g.,
> > the invention of a new Periodic Table of Nanomaterials) and artistic
> > production (e.g., ArtNano Innovations). As we noted in our white paper
> for
> > the SEAD Network: "The collaborative endeavor spotlighted in this paper
> > presents one example of two lifelong practitioners in the ArtScience
> > process who have come together to explore the possibilities of realizing
> > innovations in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology that can help meet our most
> > urgent global challenges (Ozin et al., 2009). I don't recall sending you
> > our proposal for the ArtNano Innovations. But I'd gladly do so, if you're
> > interested.
> >
> > For the moment, I'll simply point to a couple of artscience
> > collaborations that have led to patented inventions and tangible products
> > with industrial applications.* *I was hoping that more researchers in the
> > SEAD Network who composed meta analyses would visit my collaborator
> > Geoffrey Alan Ozin's website (http://nanowizardry.info), they would've
> > seen the pioneering work Geoffrey and his colleagues have done over the
> > past four decades -- much of which embody the ArtScience process and
> > practices. Geoffrey's creative collaborations reveal how the arts add
> much
> > to scientific inquiry and are useful in ways that catalyze innovations. I
> > find that Ozin 's books and papers on Nanochemistry address many of the
> > concerns the SEAD Network and Yasmin community have mulled over for some
> > time now; they provide fresh insights into teaching, learning and
> > applying his polymathic knowledge *from lab-to-market*. Also, Ozin's
> > artscience approach has led to a number of practical patents and new
> > businesses (such as the Toronto-based company he co-founded, Opalux (
> > http://opalux.com), which produce "tunable photonic crystal technology"
> > applied to security printing.
> >
> > One quick aside that's important to mention here: there's a rather
> curious
> > connection between our different, yet related, approaches to purposeful
> > "object making" is how Ozin et al build their nanomaterials on a
> > microscopic level (from bottom up). In an uncanny way, their process
> > parallels how I create my large-scale paintings [some 14ft. x 200ft.]
> using
> > macroscopic scale techniques (literally, top down), which utilize the
> > retro-relief printing/painting technology that MIT patented for me some
> > years ago.
> >
> > My point is: there are many basic connections between our diverse
> > approaches to discovery and innovation that are uniquely united through
> the
> > artscience process; invariably, that process yields many "accidental
> > discoveries," to borrow Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's words; as he writes: "A
> > discovery is said to be an accident meeting a prepared mind." I've
> > experienced this many times: how both art & science prepare our minds for
> > that unexpected encounter with discovery; and how the research-based work
> > of artscience often leads to patentable products. I'm inclined to believe
> > this work succeeds precisely because it fosters the open-mindedness and
> > creative freedom I enjoy in transdisciplinary thinking and integrative
> > studies. That's why I've been having so much fun collaborating with
> > Geoffrey. He gets the whole ArtScience process, because he's been
> > practicing it over a lifetime as evidenced in "Materialology: Past,
> > Present, Future" Nanochemistry Research Group 2012.
> >
> > Concerning (2)*:* I think* *the creative collaborations you're aiming to
> > teach can be gleaned from reading this book: Ozin, G.A., Arsenault, A.C.,
> > and Cademartirir, L. (2009).* Nanochemistry: A Chemical Approach to
> > Nanomaterial. *Toronto, Canada: Royal Society of Chemistry and University
> > of Toronto. Ozin et al. write: "One of the hallmarks of nanoscience is
> > its interdisciplinary nature—its practice requires chemists, physicists,
> > materials scientists, engineers and biologists to work together in
> > close-knit teams," write Geoffrey Ozin, Andre Arsenault and Ludovico
> > Cademartiri, co-authors of *Nanochemistry: A Chemical Approach to
> > Nanomaterials *(2009). "Communication and collaboration between
> > disciplines will enable these teams to tackle the most challenging
> > scientific problems, those that are most pressing in the successful
> > exploitation of nanotechnology.
> >
> > On a related note, the procedures we've been using since 1994 to
> stimulate
> > and cultivate "ArtScience collaborations" are highlighted in this
> article:
> > "The ArtScience Program for Realizing Human Potential," in LEONARDO, Vol.
> > 44, No.5, 2011; pp. 417-424, 2011. As you'll read, the ArtScience
> program
> > is meant to *start upstream* [in elementary school] and carry on through
> > high-school and college, and used throughout one's careers. In fact, the
> > ArtScience process as described in this program is intended to be applied
> > *lifelong* and used in *informal learning* situations, such as in various
> > professional work-related situations, where individuals, groups and
> > cross-functional teams (composed of a spectrum of specialists)
> collaborate
> > on goal-oriented projects with measurable outcomes. (Siler, Todd.
> > (2012) 'Pointing your way to success through metaphorming,''in *Journal
> > of Business Strategy*, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 47-58, ISSN 0275-6668. ; Q
> > Emerald Group Publishing Limited, "Making sense of ideas: The model route
> > to innovation," in *Strategic Direction* Vol. 26, No. 11 2010, pp. 25-27;
> > ISSN 0258-0543)
> >
> > The taproot for that program and its approach to innovation was initially
> > expressed in *Breaking The Mind Barrier: The Artscience of
> Neurocosmology*(Simon & Schuster, 1990). Essentially, I used the visual
> arts to make some
> > new connections between two of the most complex physical sciences: human
> > neuroscience and the scientific study of the cosmos. I still find that
> > adventurous connection-making process essential for catalyzing innovative
> > thinking and creative collaborations. It's also important for raising
> > insightful hypotheses, which can be confirmed (or not confirmed) by
> > applying the scientific method. That was one of the key points of
> *Breaking
> > The Mind Barrier:* fostering ArtScience collaborations that apply
> > creative inquiry in probing natural connections on all dimensions and
> > scales.
> >
> > "The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions that have been concealed
> > by the answers," according to the novelist James Baldwin.
> >
> > My artscience work aims to lay bare many fundamental questions about the
> > relationships and interactions between the inner-and-outer workings of
> > the brain. The relationships and interactions remain as unsolved
> mysteries
> > of human creativity. I tried my best to explore this reality in *Breaking
> > The Mind Barrier*, which grew out of this adventurous doctoral work,
> *Architectonics
> > of Thought: A Symbolic Model of Neuropsychological Processes* (Ph.D. in
> > Interdisciplinary Studies in Psychology and Art, Massachusetts Institute
> of
> > Technology, 1986; https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/17200*.*
> >
> > Finally, "the dichotomizing between art and science," as you've aptly put
> > it Roger, will continue until the day everyone realizes that *we tend to
> > experience things by how we define them.* In fact, our context-specific
> > definitions of art and science (more so than our content-specific
> > definitions) lead us to construct all sorts of silos and towering walls
> of
> > today's compartmentalized fields of specialized disciplinary knowledge.
> > These real silos and virtual walls are still present. I see us smacking
> > into them like birds hitting crystal clear closed windows. Honestly, it
> > hurts just the same crashing into the silent symbolic space that
> separates
> > the words and worlds of "art science"; that space may as well be filled
> by
> > an astrix or hyphen or slash mark, or some other symbolic expression of
> > separation.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > PS – the attached PDF explores our ever-evolving definitions of Art. Some
> > years ago I wrote these informal "notes to myself" that highlight various
> > changes I've seen in our definitions and experiences of the arts. I think
> > these notes may still be useful for further developing an ArtScience
> > education that applies an ever-adaptable, lifelong curriculum for
> fostering
> > innovative thinking.
> >
> > toddsiler@alum.mit.edu
> >
> > *www.ToddSilerArt.com*
> >
> >
> > roger malina
> > Aug 22 (7 days ago)
> > to yasmin_announc., YASMIN
> > Brian
> >
> > your email triggered a nerve-
> >
> > when we surveyed the STEAM field in
> > US high schools for the SEAD white papers we found dozens
> > of STEAM programs- including STEAM with the A for Agriculture-
> > so yes all for Activism !!
> >
> > my colleague tom linehan has been asking provocatively whether
> > the very concept of STEM is a concept that is now no longer useful
> >
> > ie the very ontology of STEM forces you into a way of thinking
> > that blocks the most interesting ideas and projects
> >
> > Johnathan Zillberg in his SEAD white paper meta analysis
> > started a frontal attack on the very concept of the two cultures
> > as one that is no longer useful and critiques how in spite of
> > ourselves we draw on the two culture mythology even though
> > C P snow himself disagreed with the way his ideas had been
> > distorted
> >
> > how would the art science community begin to think if we
> > banished the two cultures and CP Snow (yeah aristotle is fun
> > to read too) and the very concept of dividing knowledge and
> > education into STEM fields and non STEM Fields= so maybe
> > this STEM to STEAM discussion is fundamentally misguided
> >
> > i remember 20 years ago roy ascott when we were working
> > on the Leonardo Special Issue on Art and Interactive Telecommunications
> > (with the late and regretted Carl Loeffler) agitating to find a way
> > to replace the work Art because it carried too much unuseful baggage
> >
> >
> > so no for STEAM STEAAM SHTEAM yes for ?
> >
> > roger
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to.
> In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
>
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
