This article concerns the symposium Transparent vision – the art and science of glass, held in June, 2011. The symposium was part of the Biennale Kijkduin, and organized by Angela van der Burght, curator at the Biennale and Caroline Prisse (artist, curator and former head of the Glass Department of the Amsterdam Gerrit Rietveld Academy)
The art and science of glass – An examination
Glass is everywhere. Visible and invisible, glass as a material of great importance for our world in many ways. It is important to shape our tangible environment, but also valuable in today’s information society. It proves to be a rich material for different forms of art, but also has countless applications in science and industry. In short, as new types of glass are discovered, glass causes revolutionary changes in the field of economics, health, safety, technology, architecture, culture, nature and the environment.
It is therefore no wonder that the symposium ‘Transparent vision – the art and science of glass’, aims to encourage the development of talent working with glass in the field of art, technology and science. For these are the people that make our world change, being engaged in experiments and innovative applications of glass – design students of art academies and universities around Europe, entrepreneurs, and experts.
Crossing borders
The symposium 2011 does not come from a void. It builds on the conclusions of the symposium ‘Scratching the Surface – Matters of Perception’ (organized in 2009 by the Glass Department of the Gerrit Rietveld Academy, Amsterdam). The result of that symposium was that the art-academies should be more interested in new technologies and knowhow of glass experts outside the art world. The aim of this years’ symposium therefore was to research in what way Art, Science and Industry can positively influence and stimulate each other. Question was, is there a format in which these three can find each other more easily? A way to cross the borders between these disciplines?
After listening to the inspiring speeches of ten prominent glass experts during the symposium, the implicit hypotheses of the questions keeps on bugging my mind. If art and science should come more together, it suggests that currently they are apart. Of course our present time clearly suggests that art and science are opposites. We may see that in the least on a practical level in society: on the one hand we have scientists that produce a thing we call knowledge, on the other hand we see artists that create art and beauty. However, it would be interesting to know what is the difference on a more theoretical base. Is art personal and science factual, in the way that art makes the personal into something more universal, and science strives to make facts into a valid universality? Or are art en science distinguished by the fact that one creates systematic knowledge, the other unsystematic beauty? Or should we just say that art is what artists make and science what scientists produce?
It is interesting to know that a few hundred years ago, during the renaissance, art and science were not seen as two different things. Leonardo DaVinci is a good example, as is the development of perspective. Through time, there always have been spirits that have challenged the difference. Take Einstein, who said that the greatest scientists are artists as well. Or philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, who stated that science was an art, and both have just other styles of looking at truth. One might argue that they are both ways to make sense of a world full of facts, feelings and details. They are showing how we can interpret our world. Moreover, they come together in technology, as design becomes more and more important in new technical gadgets and practical applications.
Inspiring visions
Of course, the speakers of the symposium, often working both in an artistic and scientific way, are seriously challenging the hypothesis of opponents. During the speeches it becomes clear that for most of them, the boundary between art and science is not always as easy to pinpoint.
Keynote speaker Robert Dijkgraaf points out that a hundred years ago, art was quite influenced by science, for example by the ideas of physics. Dada mirrored the non-sense of quantum mechanics, composer Schönberg felt downright kinship to Einstein.
He also refers to technology, being the subject that shapes both nature and culture. Going even further: technology in the 21st century will make it possible to change ourselves into a work of art. It will be possible to ‘plug into’ our own cells. This technology will make art and science come together.
Architect, researcher and developer Mick Eekhout suggests, after an inspiring speech about experiments and innovation in glass, that the ‘people of extremes’ in art and science, may be more likely then they think. The systematically working scientist also has his ‘strokes’ of enthusiasm and uncontrolled energy, and is working like an artist at such moments. On the other hand do artists sometimes work scientifically systematic to get their piece of art done.
A nice example hereof is provided by designer, or rather ‘formfinder’, Arnout Visser. His main inspiration is the world of logic, and his work actually comes close to physics. He uses recycled glass in his art – often in half free, half functional forms. Also non-refined recycled glass, sometimes mixed with other materials, is used as a building material with new qualtities, for example a glass brick.
As for the fact that art creates beauty and science produces knowledge, Professor Galjaard gives us quite a challenge. Admitting that his view on beauty is probably much influenced by his work as a scientist, he spent 2,5 years looking for ‘beauty that is no design’ or a search for esthetics in natural sciences. He invited 10 natural scientists worldwide to produce pictures concerning their work. Mostly it was the invisible made visible by new techniques such as tunneling microscopy. This resulted in a collection of beautiful pictures – and interesting enough to be exhibited in the eminent Rotterdam museum Boijmans- Van Beuningen.
Even so, Galjaard holds that there is no real connection between beauty and science, in the sense that beauty doesn’t influence science. However, he sees a supporting role for beauty. It may challenge and stimulate young people to discover where this beauty – e.g. in the case of the pictures of models – comes from. People indifferent to science might be intrigued by what they see and thus may want to learn more about it it. Speaker Els Zijlstra, architect and founder of ‘Materia’, an inspiration centre for materials, supports this view of showing the beauty of materialized science. This beauty might seduce people in art and science to cooperate, and might even provide the translation and understanding of each other’s motivation.
Probably furthest goes Koen Vanmechelen, visual artist and Dr H.C. from the University of Hasselt, Belgium. In his Cosmopolitan Chicken Project, he collaborates with alpha-and beta scientists from all over the world. With his mindblowing international breeding project, he drags the spectator right into a world where all differences are vague, and that is characterized by a symbiosis between art, science, philosophy, politics and ethics.
Hardware vs feelings
As said, despite the fact that art and science may not always be easy to distinguish in the fields our speakers are living and working, society learns us otherwise. There are technical educations and art academies. And for most of us, also theoretical boundary is from intuition clear to us.
Ducth designer Arnout Visser gives a clear and charming view: ‘Science is the hardware. The furniture of a room. Art is the feeling. The temperature, the light. If you leave out one, you have no home. Only together they have meaning. We need each other!’ Also Mick Eekhout stresses that need for each other, by saying that the ‘people of extremes’ in science and art should come together. They should look in each other’s heads and try to grasp each other’s language. Professor Dijkgraaf supposes that, since the Dutch have a long and beautiful tradition in art, and also quite a reputation in science, the combination should be powerful. Ideal for Holland in Europe.
If art and science are considered separately, it is definitely time to get them more together, is their message.
Conclusion
There are countless ways of looking at art and science.
It seems that every distinguishment we make between art and science is disputable on the other hand, as is every statement that they are the same.
Besides researching in what way art, science and industry can positively influence and stimulate each other, the other aim of the symposium was ‘researching the format and value of long-standing relationships, leading to formal partnerships, for example between art students and their peers from technical universities, as well as think tanks with science and industry representation from across the different sectors to stimulate new research and development.’
Such a platform should be possible to create, as even, for a start, the lectures of the symposium are published on an accompanying website, which will also ‘store documentation and create a platform for personal messages and a continuation of debate and dialogue.’
In order to stimulate international dialogue, a virtual meeting place might not suffice. Speaker Els Zijlstra might give us a clou on how to create a format for contact. She is an architect and founder of Materia, an ‘inspiration centre’ or maybe a platform where professionals and producers of material can find each other in different ways. Her suggestion is that an organization like hers is a good example of how art and science could meet. Put the problem, inspiration or commitment in the organization (or platform), that will translate it, and give it back to the world by publishing it. This suggests that, should an institution like hers be created for art and science to come together, it should be managed. It should not just exist. There should be found experts in different fields for the caretaking and maintenance of such a platform or institution. Or rather, as Zijlstra warns us, ‘it doesn’t come to you. You have to do it yourself.’
And maybe that is the best conclusion to draw. Working together, inspiring each other, be it a chicken farmer, a rocket scientist or a decorative glass blower, does not go by itself. We have to look each other up and listen to each other. A scientist might inspire an artist or vice versa. But a client with a problem might be as big an inspiration, or maybe a question from the market. We have to do something. I’d like to refer to the speeches of Mick Eekhout and Peter Drobny. They agree on surmising that it is important that we are never afraid of failure and pushing limits. We should go outside the realm of logic and turn it up a few notches – that is where it happens. Between there and market forces.
The message of this symposium is that we should get into action. Talk. Listen. Learn. Cooperate. Act. A message clear as glass.
Natalie Hanssen
Natalie Hanssen (1970) studied Theoretical Psychology at Leiden University (RUL) and graduated on the subject ‘Art and Knowledge’. After a short career in advertising she is currently working as a textwriter, columnist and journalist for diverse Dutch media. Next to this Natalie Hanssen is working as a cartoonist.
Posted on September 4, 2011