2.4.1 Scientist-artists originally conceived and designed bridges. The power-structure-behind-the-king, seeing great exploitability of the bridge for their own advantaging, accredited workers and materials to build bridges. (Fuller, 1981, pg. 27)

2.4.2 But it seems that there is still much work to be done in building the bridge between the humanities and the sciences. John Brockman, editor of a book of essays entitled The Third Culture, negates Snow's optimistic prediction that a day will come when literary intellectuals will communicate effectively with scientists. Instead he makes the claim that the contemporary scientists are the third culture and alludes that there is no need for trying to establish communication between scientists and literary intellectuals, who he calls the "middlemen." (Brockman, 1995, pg. 18) Although the choice of people in his book is significant, [1] the mere fact that it is comprised almost completely of Western white men, with the exception of Lynn Margolis with her essay "Gaia is a tough Bitch" makes it impossible to take his proposition seriously. But it does point to the continuing gap between the humanities and sciences and clearly shows that the bridge being constructed is still very fragile.

2.4.3 The bridge is triangulated and made into a more stable structure with the work of artists who are utilising new technologies and are in active dialogue with both sides. Artists using technology are uniquely positioned in the middle of the scientific and literary/philosophical communities, and we are allowed "poetic license," which gives us the freedom to reinforce the delicate bridge and indeed contribute to the creation of a new mutant third culture. By utilising tools familiar to scientists and collaborating with the scientific community, we are getting closer to an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual respect.

2.4.4 This road, however, is not without dangers of which to be wary. It is a delicate mission to be in between disciplines that are themselves in a tenuous relationship. Perhaps the greatest danger is for artists to look to the literary, philosophical, and theoretical circles for interpretations of scientific data and then further reinterpret their versions without checking back with the scientists. Much postmodern writing borders on linguistic play with mathematics and scientific terminology that serves to alienate the scientific community, which has used precise methods to arrive at those theories. [2] This is not to say that one should blindly accept all products of the scientific community, but simply to suggest that any working relationship needs to be based on mutual respect and dialogue. The other danger that faces those 'in between' working on creating 'something else' is the general attitude of theory being above practice, prevalent in both humanities and sciences. At this stage, it is in the practice of art that the freedom lies to make assertions that are beyond the rational and beyond necessary methodology of proving a thesis. Practice informed by theory, utilising a methodology which makes it accessible to both worlds, is the key. Or, conversely, theory informed by practice.

2.4.5 Currently, much of this bridge-building work takes place in universities for more reason than one. First, at this point, with no market in place, it is impossible to make a living outside of academia and industry. Between the two, academia is generally friendlier to someone searching for a yet-to-be-defined path than industry, with its pressures to produce. Second, academia is a natural environment in which one can have access to good bandwidth and updated equipment. Third, and perhaps most important, academia allows artists contact with scholars from many disciplines. In order to function and communicate effectively in this context, one must learn the etiquette and language of various disciplines. The challenge, then, is to do this without losing the intuitive, 'wild' aspect, the practice, that taps into the silent, the unknown, the mysterious.

2.4.6 Our work depends largely on an active dialogue with scientists and humanists while performing an important function of being bridge builders. And as any engineer knows, we have to know the territory on both sides and be very precise in how we negotiate the space 'in between.' Negotiating the gap between the canon of rationality and the fluid poetic is ultimately the goal of artists who work with communication technologies. [top]

Notes:

1. Representatives of the Third Culture according to Brockman are William C. Williams; Stephen Jay Gould; Richard Dawkins; Brian Goodwin; Stev Jones; Niles Eldredge; Lynn Margulis; Marvin Minsky; Roger Schank; Daniel C. Dennet, Nicholas Humphrey; Francisco Varela; Steven Pinker; Roger Penrose; Martin Rees; Alan Guth; Lee Smolin; Paul Davies; Murray Gell-Mann; Stuart Kauffmann; Christopher G. Langton; J. Doyne Farmer; W. Daniel Hillis. He first published a brief essay on the idea of the emerging third culture in September, 1991 in his journal, the Edge. Now online, he continues to promote this idea: www.edge.org/3rd_culture [back]

2. The term "postmodern" is being used as summarised by Barry Smart: Postmodernity remains a contentious term, signifying for some analysts simply a "symptom of the current mood of Western intelligentsia" (Callinicos,1989, pg. 9), whilst for others it describes important aspects of the social, cultural, and political conditions to which we increasingly find ourselves subject. (Harvey, 1989; Bauman, 1992) And of those analysts who regard the term as appropriate for describing contemporary conditions some at least clearly consider the constituency affected, the 'we,' not to be confined to either the 'first' world or the intelligentsia alone. (Rouse, 1991) The configuration of Western modernity has been placed in question and challenged in a second, somewhat different manner by increasing evidence that the economic and cultural momentum has swung away from both Europe and America towards the Pacific rim and the modernising societies of the East. (Smart, B. 1993, pp.150-151) [back]