Art/ science collaboration: what's in it for the science?
Experiences from our lab and its artists-in-residence over the years
During a recent workshop at Spreepark Berlin, attended by students of my MSc course the lab portion of which is themed around creativity, and some lab members, as well as two of our artists-in-residence (Marcus Maeder and Saša Spačal, with additions from Sybille Neumeyer), we discussed how art-science collaborations can result in benefits for science. Here’s what we found.
Science communication and outreach. This would be the most obvious ‘product’ for the scientists engaged in an art-science collaboration. While this is not what the artist is interested in per se, since they will have their own motivation, plan and interests, this can certainly result as a sort of ‘by-product’ of this interaction. This can happen in a number of ways, for example as part of exhibits where the artist paves the way for communication with the local community. Story-telling objects can be important here, artifacts that serve as conversation starters.
Idea creation. This is what I’m most interested in! This idea creation can happen in various different ways:
Asking unexpected questions that trigger new thoughts (this in the past happened with Karine Bonneval, another artist in residence in our lab; we wrote about that in a piece in Nature)
In conversations with the artist, unusual terms or connections appear; one recent example of this was the term ‘soundscape stewardship’ that occurred in a conversation with Marcus Maeder, leading to a recent paper in Science.
A general atmosphere of playfulness (for example during workshops or other interactions) can be conducive to the formation of ideas
Artists are adept at perspective changes, and changes in perspective can be important for the generation of ideas
The artist can help identify cultural or professional filters, and overcoming these can lead to the creation of ideas
Methods. This is probably unexpected, but artists can introduce methods to the lab. Most recently, this happened when Marcus Maeder added his sound engineering background to the lab. There can also be transfer of methods between arts and science.
Teaching. Including artistic presentations in courses can be an enriching experience for the course. A guest lecture delivered by Saša Spačal in my Fungal Biology MSc course in 2022 was very positively received by student as a welcome and surprising perspective change.
Formation of networks and friendships. Artists can be quite important in extending scientists’ professional networks, of course with others artists, but also with other scientists they work with, and also members of the public. These new connections and friendships can offer additional opportunities for exchange and input into the lab.
Building aesthetic competencies. Aesthetics is a key ingredient in arts, and this is also becoming increasingly important in the sciences, for example in terms of figures for papers or proposals, both data figures and conceptual figures.
Importance of tinkering. Especially the exploratory phases of science are often about tinkering. Artists are often extremely good at tinkering, and this is something we can learn from them.
These were the main outcomes from our discussion. What would you add from your experiences of expectations of interactions with artists. Or if you are an artist, what would you add to this list?
As a researcher investigating the interrelation between literary fiction and the life sciences, this is a great read. At times, the question of "what does science gain from it?" remains overlooked in the art/science collab hype. I would especially interested in hearing more about what you think about the transfer of methods between arts and the sciences!
greatly expanded on this topic. I am also working with an artist to communicate climate related topics through music. I found artists are in general great in communicating and touching heart and this is something we scientists need to learn from them.