It’s unclear if mainstream venues exhibiting
science-related art value it for the scientific
concepts it addresses or for other reasons, such
as aesthetics. “The venues I have worked with
in NYC,” said Splan, who has exhibited her
work in venues from Chelsea to the New York
Hall of Science, “have generally prioritized
points of entry that are informed by conventional aesthetics of art and design over institutional aesthetics of science and medicine.” We
asked the galleries their views on these issues,
but despite numerous inquires to major New
York museums and galleries both mentioned
and unmentioned in this article, we did not
receive a reply on the subject.
lier, last March ARTnews published an article
entitled, “Weird Science: Biotechnology as Art
Form” which discusses BioArt as an art practice that replaces the studio with a laboratory,
and mentioned several places where BioArtists
work, such as Genspace, the NATLab at SVA,
and SymbioticA of Australia. While the author
limited the discussion to BioArt, to see this
type of discussion happen in a major art magazine is an important first step.
__________________________________________
The factors that prevent SciArt from claiming territory in the mainstream art world, from
SciArt’s pedagogical aspects to its biohazard
potential, label conventions, obscurity, and/or a
possible stigma of classification with a “logical”,
VII. Rallying Around Important Topics
“left-brained” discipline are, of course, imposSciArt made inroads into the art world around sible to measure or even disentangle. Subject
the same time science made inroads into popu- matter aside, galleries may reject some SciArt—
and this would be true with any art—because
lar culture. One rallying point was genetics
it just isn’t as ‘good’ as the competition. The
and genomics in the 1990s, now known as the
thing is that it’s impossible to put the subject
decade of the gene. In 1994, Anker curated an
matter aside. What makes something good is
exhibit at Fordham University entitled “Gene
Culture: Molecular Metaphor in Contemporary in the eye of the beholder—but the beholder
may well be influenced by mainstream convenArt.” In 1996, Art Journal, a publication of the
College Art Association, put out an issue, guest- tions about content. All of these factors could
also be related to the broader cultural context
edited by Levy with Berta Sichel, on “Art and
of the role of art in our society. As religion used
the Genetic Code” that reached a very wide,
largely academic audience and quickly sold out. to be both the center of culture and the subject
matter of art, there is the growing idea that as
Anker remembers many exhibits in conjunction with the announcement of the rough draft science gains prominence in our culture at large,
SciArt will become more and more central to
of the human genome, in 2000. “Probably the
the art world, a topic we discussed in our very
most famous one,” Anker said, “was ‘Paradise
first issue.
Now,’ which was at Exit Art,” a SoHo Gallery
that has since closed. The 50th anniversary of
“Everything takes time,” said Pannucci, “and
the discovery of the structure of DNA occathose
artists that are at the forefront of pushsioned science-related art exhibits in 2003. That
ing
boundaries—that
has always been the case
year, Anker and Dorothy Nelkin published the
that
their
work
wasn’t
understood… [for SciArt]
book The Molecular Gaze: Art in the Genetic Age.
I don’t think it’s any different, really, and I do
“For whatever reason, there’s been more diffi- think that {a change is} coming because these
culty with receptivity to scientific ideas in con- scientific issues of sustainability and climate
change and environmental issues are in our face
junction with artwork, but I think the attitude
has changed a lot with the genome project, with right now and they’re not going away, and evthe cloning of Dolly,” says Levy. “There’ve been erybody across the board is already impacted
by them and will be much more… In that sense,
so many spectacular things in the public eye—
there is a bright future for artists that deal with
for example, stem cell research—this has been
science topics.”
incredibly compelling. They evoke wonder,
inspiring both the interest and even jealousy
Pratt Manhattan Gallery’s Battis reinforced
of artists who try to duplicate and borrow the
this
explanation: “We’ve sort of accepted that
language and processes of science.”
artists define our culture—help us to define and
understand culture—so why can’t we apply that
SciArt is starting to make appearances in
to science as well?”
mainstream art magazines. As mentioned ear-
10
SciArt in America December 2013