Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundations of ArtScience: Formulating the Problem

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While art and science still functioned side-by-side during the Renaissance, their methods and perspectives diverged during the nineteenth century, creating a still enduring separation between the "two cultures". Recently, artists and scientists again collaborate more frequently, as promoted most radically by the ArtScience movement. This approach aims at a true synthesis between the intuitive, imaginative methods of art and the rational, rule-governed methods of science. To prepare the grounds for a theoretical synthesis, this paper surveys the fundamental commonalities and differences between science and art. Science and art are united in their creative investigation, where coherence, pattern or meaning play a vital role in the development of concepts, while relying on concrete representations to experiment with the resulting insights. On the other hand, according to the standard conception, science seeks an understanding that is universal, objective and unambiguous, while art focuses on unique, subjective and open-ended experiences. Both offer prospect and coherence, mystery and complexity, albeit with science preferring the former and art, the latter. The paper concludes with some examples of artscience works that combine all these aspects.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

source: link

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aoki, Y. (1999). Review article: Trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landscape Research, 24(1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arslan, B., Brouse, A., Castet, J., Filatriau, J.-J., Léhembre, R., Noirhomme, Q., & Simon, C. (2005). From biological signals to music. In 2nd International conference on enactive interfaces.

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

  • Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Fontana.

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Eriksson, C. I., Ståhlbröst, A., & Svensson, J. (2009). A milieu for innovation: defining living labs. DIVA. Presented at the ISPIM innovation symposium: 06/12/2009–09/12/2009.

  • Bohm, D., & Peat, F. D. (2010). Science, order and creativity. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borgdorff, H., Peters, P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2019). Dialogues between artistic research and science and technology studies (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockman, J. (1995). The third culture. Simon & Schuster.

  • Brown, A. W., & Root-Bernstein, R. (2015). ReBioGeneSys—Origins of Life. Retrieved from https://adamwbrown.net/projects-2/rebiogenesys-origins-of-life/

  • Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti, J., & Karlqvist, A. (2003). Art and complexity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1998). Embodied, Situated, and Distributed Cognition. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 506–517). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.

  • Dominiczak, M. H. (2015). Artscience: A new avant-garde? Clinical Chemistry, 61(10), 1314–1315. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.236992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domnitch, E., & Gelfand, D. (2017). ER=EPR. Retrieved from https://www.portablepalace.com/erepr.html

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaut, B. (2005). The cluster account of art defended. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 45(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. (2003). Regularities and randomness: Evolving schemata in science and the arts. In J. Casti & A. Karlqvist (Eds.), Art and complexity (pp. 47–58). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Retrieved from https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20150922-090612748

  • Gershenson, C. (2004) Cognitive paradigms: which one is the best? Cognitive Systems Research, 5(2), 135–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.4.2.87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., Kersten, A., & Carvalho, P. F. (2012). Concepts and categorization. Handbook of psychology, Second Edition, 4.

  • Grassé, P. (1960). The automatic regulations of collective behavior of social insect and “stigmergy”. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique, 57, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, T. (2003). Structuralism and semiotics. Routledge.

  • Heylighen F. & Petrovic K. (2020). Foundations of ArtScience: Towards a synthesis of scientific investigation and artistic imagination (in preparation)

  • Heylighen, F. (1999). Advantages and limitations of formal expression. Foundations of Science, 4(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009686703349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (2006). Characteristics and problems of the gifted: Neural propagation depth and flow motivation as a model of intelligence and creativity (ECCO Working papers No. 2006-05). Retrieved from https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Giftednessmodel.pdf

  • Heylighen, F. (2009). Complexity and self-organization. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences, Third Edition (pp. 1215–1224). Taylor & Francis.

  • Heylighen, F. (2012). A tale of challenge, adventure and mystery: Towards an agent-based unification of narrative and scientific models of behavior (ECCO Working Papers No. 2012-06). ECCO. Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from https://pcp.vub.ac.be/papers/TaleofAdventure.pdf

  • Heylighen, F. (2016a). Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (2016b). Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism II: Varieties and evolution. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (2019). Transcending the rational symbol system: How information technology integrates science, art, philosophy and spirituality into a global brain. Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/TranscendingRSS.pdf

  • Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., & Gershenson, C. (2007). Complexity and philosophy. In J. Bogg & R. Geyer (Eds.), Complexity, science and society (pp. 117–134). Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F., Kostov, I., & Kiemen, M. (2013). Mobilization systems: Technologies for motivating and coordinating human action. In Peters M. A., Besley T. and Araya D. (Ed.), The new development paradigm: Education, knowledge economy and digital futures (pp. 115–144). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved from https://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/MobilizationSystems.pdf

  • Johnson, M. (2008). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2018). The aesthetics of meaning and thought: The bodily roots of philosophy, science, morality, and art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux New York.

  • Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In J. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (pp. 45–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. D. (2003). Symbolic and sub-symbolic representations in computational models of human cognition: What can be learned from biology? Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354303136005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, B. (Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, L. (2014). The predictive mind and the experience of visual art work. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiemen, M., & Ballon, P. (2012). Living labs & stigmergic prototyping: Towards a Convergent Approach. In ISPIM conference proceedings (pp. 1–13). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). Retrieved from https://www.mixel.be/files/pdf/ISPIM2012.pdf

  • Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 4, 70–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Keplinger, C. (2006). Mystery appeal: Effects of uncertainty and resolution on the enjoyment of mystery. Media Psychology, 8(3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0803_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Núnez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books.

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. G. (1997). Artificial life: An overview. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, pp. 369–381.

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Ward, J. (2005). Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science–society collaborations in Europe, Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science–society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505056612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, P. (1995). Artificial life meets entertainment: Lifelike autonomous agents. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, F. (2001). Charles Sanders Peirce’s concept of the sign. The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics, 28–39.

  • Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parunak, H. V. D. (2006). A survey of environments and mechanisms for human–human stigmergy. In D. Weyns, H. V. D. Parunak, & F. Michel (Eds.), Environments for multi-agent systems II (pp. 163–186). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Penny, S. (2017). Making sense: Cognition, computing, art, and embodiment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, J. D. (2015). The marvelous clouds: Toward a philosophy of elemental media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Bantam Books.

  • Prophet, J., & Pritchard, H. (2015). Performative apparatus and diffractive practices: An account of artificial life art. Artificial Life, 21(3), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1162/ARTL_a_00174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, B., Siler, T., Brown, A., & Snelson, K. (2011). ArtScience: Integrative collaboration to create a sustainable future. Leonardo, 44(3), 192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2000). Sparks of genius: The 13 thinking tools of the World’s most creative people. Houghton Mifflin.

  • Schnugg, C. (2019). Creating ArtScience collaboration: Bringing value to organizations. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schnugg, C., & Song, B. (2020). An organizational perspective on ArtScience collaboration: Opportunities and challenges of platforms to collaborate with artists. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6010006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siler, T. (2011). The artscience program for realizing human potential. Leonardo, 44(5), 417–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, K. (1994). Evolving virtual creatures. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (pp. 15–22). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/192161.192167

  • Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sormani, P., Carbone, G., & Gisler, P. (2018). Practicing art/science: Experiments in an emerging field. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M., & Kruse, P. (1990). Theory of gestalt and self-organization. Self-steering and cognition in complex systems. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp. 142–169.

  • Stamps, A. E., III. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strosberg, E. (2001). Art and science. New York: Abbeville Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomae, H. (1999). The nomothetic-idiographic issue: Some roots and recent trends. International Journal of Group Tensions, 28(1), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011a). Gestalts as predictions: Some reflections and an application to art. Gestalt Theory, 33(3), 325–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011b). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. I-Perception, 2(9), 1035–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter-Herrmann, J., & Büching, C. (2014). FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors. transcript Verlag.

  • Wilson, B. (2017). ArtScience and the metaphors of embodied realism. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), Transdisciplinary higher education: A theoretical basis revealed in practice (pp. 179–203). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., Hawkins, B., & Sim, S. (2015). Art, science and communities of practice. Leonardo, 48(2), 152–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Francis Heylighen & Katarina Petrović

Authors
  1. Francis Heylighen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katarina Petrović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis Heylighen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heylighen, F., Petrović, K. Foundations of ArtScience: Formulating the Problem. Found Sci 26, 225–244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09660-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09660-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation