Critical theorists tells us that interstitial zones between disciplines offer new sites of knowledge production - which is why institutions such as Khoj find themselves exploring interdisciplinary spaces such as art and fashion, art and architecture and art and design.
But art and science, really? How do these seemingly dichotomous worlds come together? And specifically in the case of ecology, how do you classify one thing as science and another as ecological art?
And so we begin this Khoj residency on art + ecology + science, as with any great investigative process, with questions (new terrian that we hope to traverse) and quotes! (learned concepts that will help us build upon their profundities)
Stacy Levy tells us "We tend to think of nature as something separate and other. So often we place nature at the opposite end of the spectrum from culture. Culture is us, nature is other." Such a view is consistent with Greenbergian philosophy, where a definitve line was drawn between aesthetics and ethics (art and spiritual/social/environmental concerns) - but decades (and several art movements) later, haven't we moved on from such rigid thinking?
The curators of initiatives such as "Ecovention" (2002) would certainly hope so. In their eponymous book, Amy Lipton and Sue Spaid set about documenting and defining some of the most prominent land artists of our time. They talk about the value of ecological intervention or "ecovention" as a contemporary art
tactic and then proceed (in quite a scientfic manner!) to classify the various types of land art = any art that involves nature/activates the land.
So, roughly speaking,
"earthworks" constitute permanent, large-scale, non-natural works (Robert Smithson's "Spiral Jetty" has to be the most famous example of this)
"environmental art" seems to be art that employ nature as a medium in an endeavour to enhance the viewer's awareness of nature and its phenomena and
"ecological art" seems to be more about sustainability, adaptability and biodiversity and is not necessarily transformative.
Although references are always useful when trying to comprehend the unkown, I have a feeling I won't necessarily be using these terms when attempting to critically engage with the artists involved in this residency. Perhaps that's the nature of understanding the ever-changing world around us, we constantly need new language!
And I guess that is how I see doctors, scientists, artists and writers primarily - we share common ground as translators of the environment around us. Whether it be our microcosms or macrocosms - the body, ecological systems or the universe - we heal, decode, research, TRANSLATE.
So lastly, to end this initial blog entry, I will leave you with a thought from the book Artful Ecologies (2006) "If Science is a translator of nature's ways then art's real power is to give new ways of telling the story of nature."
But art and science, really? How do these seemingly dichotomous worlds come together? And specifically in the case of ecology, how do you classify one thing as science and another as ecological art?
And so we begin this Khoj residency on art + ecology + science, as with any great investigative process, with questions (new terrian that we hope to traverse) and quotes! (learned concepts that will help us build upon their profundities)
Stacy Levy tells us "We tend to think of nature as something separate and other. So often we place nature at the opposite end of the spectrum from culture. Culture is us, nature is other." Such a view is consistent with Greenbergian philosophy, where a definitve line was drawn between aesthetics and ethics (art and spiritual/social/environmental concerns) - but decades (and several art movements) later, haven't we moved on from such rigid thinking?
The curators of initiatives such as "Ecovention" (2002) would certainly hope so. In their eponymous book, Amy Lipton and Sue Spaid set about documenting and defining some of the most prominent land artists of our time. They talk about the value of ecological intervention or "ecovention" as a contemporary art
tactic and then proceed (in quite a scientfic manner!) to classify the various types of land art = any art that involves nature/activates the land.
So, roughly speaking,
"earthworks" constitute permanent, large-scale, non-natural works (Robert Smithson's "Spiral Jetty" has to be the most famous example of this)
"environmental art" seems to be art that employ nature as a medium in an endeavour to enhance the viewer's awareness of nature and its phenomena and
"ecological art" seems to be more about sustainability, adaptability and biodiversity and is not necessarily transformative.
Although references are always useful when trying to comprehend the unkown, I have a feeling I won't necessarily be using these terms when attempting to critically engage with the artists involved in this residency. Perhaps that's the nature of understanding the ever-changing world around us, we constantly need new language!
And I guess that is how I see doctors, scientists, artists and writers primarily - we share common ground as translators of the environment around us. Whether it be our microcosms or macrocosms - the body, ecological systems or the universe - we heal, decode, research, TRANSLATE.
So lastly, to end this initial blog entry, I will leave you with a thought from the book Artful Ecologies (2006) "If Science is a translator of nature's ways then art's real power is to give new ways of telling the story of nature."
No comments:
Post a Comment