US National Academies announce study of integrating science, engineering medecine with arts and humanities education

 Dear Colleagues

Tom Rudin of the US National Academy of Science Board on Higher Education gives us new details of the study that was announced at the National Academy Workshop earlier this year.

This focused attention is very encouraging with actions both underway in USA and Europe to understand the implications and recommendations to respond to the growing community of practice

Roger Malina



A Project of the

Board on Higher Education and Workforce

May 2016

David J. Skorton (NAM), Committee Chair, the 13th Secretary of the Smithsonian

An ad hoc committee overseen by the Board on Higher Education and Workforce (BHEW), in collaboration with other units of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, will produce a consensus report that examines the evidence behind the assertion that educational programs that mutually integrate learning experiences in the arts, humanities and STEM lead to improved educational and career outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students.  In particular, the study will examine the following:

  • Evidence regarding the value of incorporating curricula and experiences in the humanities–including the arts, history, literature, philosophy, culture and religion –into college and university STEM education programs, in order to understand whether and how these experiences: (1) prepare STEM students and workers to be more effective communicators, critical thinkers, problem-solvers and leaders; and (2) prepare STEM graduates to be more creative and effective scientists, engineers, technologists and health care providers, particularly with respect to understanding the broad social and cultural impacts of applying scientific and technical knowledge to address challenges and opportunities in the workplace and in their communities.

  • Evidence regarding the value of incorporating more STEM curricula and labs into the academic programs of students majoring in the humanities and liberal arts in order to understand the following: (1) how STEM experiences provide important knowledge about the scientific understanding of the natural world and the characteristics of new technologies, knowledge that is essential for all citizens of a modern democracy; (2) how major technological dimensions are essential to make sound decisions across all professional fields; and (3) how STEM experiences develop the skills of scientific thinking (a type of critical thinking), innovation and creativity that may complement and enrich the critical thinking and creativity skills developed by the humanities, as graduates in such fields enter the workforce and build careers.

  • New models and good practices for mutual integration of the humanities and  STEM fields at 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and graduate programs, drawing heavily on an analysis of programs that have been implemented at Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Florida International, Montgomery College, Arizona State University, SUNY-Binghamton, and many other institutions of higher education.

The outcomes of the project will include the following:

  • An analysis of the evidence of the benefits of more integrated educational experiences in the arts, humanities and STEM on the education and career experiences of students and workers.

  • An Academies consensus report, including specific, evidence-based recommendations aimed at encouraging the creation of more effective integration of the arts, humanities and STEM in our nation’s 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities—as well as in our nation’s high schools and informal education environments. The audiences for such a report will include colleges and universities, K-12 schools and school districts, policymakers at the federal and state levels, government agencies, business and industry, and foundations and other nonprofit organizations.

  • A major dissemination effort focused on sharing the report and its findings and recommendations with broad audiences—drawing upon the outreach and communications capabilities of the institutions and organizations that will be involved in shaping the report.

As BHEW and other divisions and units within the Academies embark on new projects aimed at improving the understanding and application of science, engineering and medicine toward the social, economic and cultural well-being of the nation and world, we believe it is critical to work with partners in the arts and humanities for their input and engagement.  While our focus is developing policy recommendations that improve science, engineering and health education and training in our nation’s colleges and universities, a broader goal is to enable all citizens to have enriching and meaningful careers and lives.  As such, we believe that more effective integration of educational experiences in all disciplines—particularly in the arts, humanities, sciences, engineering, and medicine—will benefit all of our nation’s citizens.

A December 2, 2015 workshop in Washington, DC, hosted by BHEW, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and attended by more than 110 scientists, engineers, artists, humanists, educators, policymakers and industry executives, was the initial step in this effort.  Mellon has

now agreed to provide generous funding to support this larger study, and additional funding is also being sought from other sources to support the 18-24 month project.



David J. Skorton (NAM), Committee Chair, is the 13th Secretary of the Smithsonian

Cathy N. Davidson is Distinguished Professor, Director of the Future Initiative, and Director of HASTAC@CUNY (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance Collaboratory of the City University of New York).

Lynn Pasquerella is President of Mount Holyoke College. A philosopher and ethicist whose career has combined teaching and scholarship with local and global engagement

Susan Albertine is Vice President of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Student Success, at the Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Norman Augustine (NAS/NAE) is retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Laurie Baefsky is  Executive Director for ArtsEngine and the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru).

Paul Bevilaqua (NAE) is Retired Manager of Advanced Development Programs at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company. \

Kristin Boudreau is Professor and Department Head of Humanities and Arts at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute..



Norman Bradburn is a Senior Fellow at NORC at the University of Chicago fellow of the American Statistical Association, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an elected member of the International Institute of Statistics

Gail Burd is the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs of the University of Arizona.

Edward Derrick became director of the AAAS Center of Science, Policy & Society Programs (CSPSP) in July 2011 after serving as deputy director then acting director of the AAAS Science and Policy Programs.

Bonnie Thornton Dill is dean of the University of Maryland College of Arts and Humanities and professor of Women’s Studies.

  1. Thomas Ewing is History Professor and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, Research, and Diversity at the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences of Virginia Tech.

  2. Benjamin Hurlbut is Assistant Professor of Biology and Society in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University

Pamela Jennings is the Director of the Center for Design Innovation at the University of North Carolina in Winston-Salem.


Youngmoo Kim is Director of the Expressive and Creative Interaction Technologies (ExCITe) Center and Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Drexel University.

Robert Martello is Professor of the History of Science and Technology at Olin College of Engineering.

Gunalan Nadarajan is Dean and Professor at the Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design at the University of Michigan.

Suzanna Rose is the Senior Associate Dean for the Sciences and Professor of Psychology & Women’s Studies in the College of Arts & Sciences at FIU

Al Bunshaft is the Senior Vice President of Dassault Systèmes’ Americas Corporation where he spearheads key strategic initiatives and corporate leadership programs

Laura Vosejpka Dr. Laura J. Vosejpka is a Professor of Physical Science at Mid Michigan Community College in Harrison, Michigan

Lisa M. Wong is a musician, pediatrician, and past president of the Longwood Symphony Orchestra.

Tom Nelson Laird is Director of the Center for Postsecondary Research (CPR) as well as principal investigator for the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), a companion project to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)..

James (“Jim”) C. Spohrer is the Director of IBM Global University Programs and leads IBM’s Cognitive Systems Institute.

Open Call for Whats on the Mind of the Art Sci Tech Community


From ralph dum at the EC  STARTS initiative


an interesting solicitation for what’s on the mind of our community ! please spread around


Dear  Colleagues

In order to start the next phase of STARTS we would like to gather CONCRETE  ideas on how the arts can best contribute to innovation in technology, business and society.

We are interested in ideas where ( technology areas, topics, societal challenges ….) such contributions could be most promising  and opinions how these synergies can be best achieved operationally (how links between the Arts and technology can best be established)

Always keeping in mind that as a technology directorate our interest in  the Arts is a catalysts of innovation: We therefore need concrete ideas for projects  not generic ideas about art or links of art with technology.

We therefore have no opened a consultation webpage (see below for practical details how to use it) where we hope to receive your input over the summer.

Feel free to distribute this email in particular to organisations interested in this link of the arts and innovation.

I look forward to  an interesting process that could guide us towards a fundamentally different process for innovation in Europe.

Best Ralph

Practical info on open and public consultation:


–          Via and then clicking the STARTS consultation

–          Or by direct link on

Register: In order to contribute one needs to register, a painless process on


–          Contribute via comments in the above mentioned pages.

–          Upload documents in the ‘library’ at and then refer to those (via their web link) in the comments.

–          Alternatively, you can simply send us documents that you would like to contribute to the discussion. We would then upload them for you.

 Remark: As this is a public consultation you could send ideas to me only in case you do not want to make your contributions public.



Looking forward to Manizales, Colombia next June for ISEA 2017


A number of us are networking to develop ideas for the ISEA 2017 conference in Manizales, Columbia next June

The ISEA organisers have approved using the REDCATSUR list as part of the networking

REDCATSUR is a network of artists, scientists, engineers, theoreticians and institutions promoting communication and collaboration in art, science and technology around Latin America.


REDCATSUR es una red de artistas, científicos, ingenieros, teóricos e instituciones que promueven la comunicación y la colaboración sobre la convergencia entre arte, ciencia y tecnología en América Latina.

Un grupo de cólegas está trabajando para promover el uso de REDCATSUR como una vía que sirva para impulsar el diálogo y la discusión colectiva en torno a temas de común interés, en vistas del próximo International Symposium on Electronic Arts. ISEA2017 será llevado a cabo en Manizales, Colombia en junio del próximo año, dentro del marco del Festival Internacional de la Imagen que se realiza habitualmente en dicha ciudad. Cualquier propuesta concreta que pudiese ser remitida a los organizadores de ISEA2017, deberá pasar siempre por los procesos de evaluación que los mismos determinen.

Queremos invitarlos a impulsar el uso de REDCATSUR como un nodo que sirva para el intercambio y debate de ideas que pueda ayudar a que esta nueva edición de ISEA, la primera en América Latina, vaya un paso más allá, proponiendo modelos de colaboración que no se agoten en los encuentros puntuales durante el evento mismo. La mayoría de las actividades que se han estado considerando en tal sentido, como potenciales propuestas, van en la dirección de espacios de intercambio tales como paneles y, sobre todo, grupos de trabajo enfocados a temas específicos, por ejemplo: [a] colaboración transdisciplinaria, y [b] historia de las artes electrónicas en América Latina (para facilitar el intercambio y su seguimiento, sugerimos mantener siempre como ASUNTO/SUBJECT de los mensajes: “colaboración transdisciplinaria_ISEA2017” o “historia de las artes electrónicas en LA_ISEA2017” dependiendo del ámbito de interés, o simplemente “ISEA2017” cuando sus comentarios estén por fuera de esos dos grandes campos). Los mensajes pueden ser en español, portugués o inglés.

Esta es una invitación a los miembros de REDCATSUR a que utilicen la lista, y también a que inviten a personas que pudiesen estar interesadas a que se suscriban a la misma para participar de los intercambios propuestos. Para registrarse pueden ingresar a:

Un significativo número de artistas y académicos han estado participando y colaborando para que la comunidad de REDCATSUR crezca a través de los casi 10 años de su existencia.

REDCATSUR cuenta con el apoyo del Centro de Experimentación e Investigación en Artes Electrónicas (CEAIrtE) de la Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero en Argentina para su gestión, y con la colaboración del Leonardo Education and Art Forum de Leonardo/International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology.

Ricardo Dal Farra  –  Roger Malina


REDCATSUR is a network of artists, scientists, engineers, theoreticians and institutions promoting communication and collaboration in art, science and technology around Latin America.

A group of colleagues and friends is working to promote the use of REDCATSUR as one way to infuse dialogue and a collective discussion that could lead to propose activities for the International Symposium on Electronic Arts – ISEA2017, on certain topics. Whatever came out from this exchange will go anyway through the regular process of submissions to be considered by the ISEA2017 evaluators.

We would like to encourage you to use REDCATSUR as a hub for discussion and networking leading to a rich exchange that could help us to take this new edition of ISEA a step further, in benefit of the whole community. Most of the activities being considered as potential proposals have to do with spaces of exchange, such as panels and working groups on specific themes, as diverse as: transdisciplinary collaboration, and history of the media arts in Latin America [to facilitate the exchange process, we suggest you to always keep as a subject: “colaboración transdisciplinaria_ISEA2017” or “historia de las artes electrónicas en LA_ISEA2017” depending of your field of interest, or simply “ISEA2017″ when your comments fall out of those two areas]. Discussions can be held in Spanish, Portuguese or English.

ISEA2017 will be held in Manizales, Colombia in June of the next year, inside the frame of the International Image Festival. Feel welcome to use REDCATSUR yourselves, and also to invite colleagues to register:

A significant number of artists and academics have been participating and helping the REDCATSUR community to grow throughout almost ten years now. REDCATSUR is being supported by the Electronic Arts Experimentation and Research Centre (CEAIrtE) of the National University of Tres de Febrero, Argentina and is co-sponsored by the Leonardo Education and Art Forum of Leonardo/International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology.

Ricardo Dal Farra  –  Roger Malina

Note- for Leonardo Education and Art Forum Members we have a google group set up- contact me if you are interested



Mercado Central Exchange; Advice to young Art Science Professionals from Rupert Cox


Our discussion on the YASMIN list, providing insights and advice to young professionals seeking to pursue art science careers has an interesting new submission by Rupert Cox

to join the discussion: sign up at

follow only at:


I am an anthropologist at the University of Manchester (Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology) who uses Art-Science methods to investigate and represent the effects of noise exposure on human health and habitus and have conducted fieldwork around US military bases on Okinawa since 2007. I am writing to you in advance of a visit to Dallas this August.

Details of my research are at but I am essentially an anthropologist of sound who has worked in a series of collaborations with a Japanese acoustic scientist (

and a sound artist from University of the Arts in London ( to create forms of public engagement.

An example of this is the following project –

1- What is your background as a scientist? In the arts, design or humanities ?

My background is as a social scientist first, being trained and employed as an anthropologist (at the University of Edinburgh), and as a media arts practitioner second (co-founding a film company My specialist field is visual anthropology, which has a history of applying techniques of visualization to understand cultural difference and human perception. A critical regard for the scientism embedded in these techniques and a concern for the ethics and politics of representing others are what characterizes my anthropological approach which was developed through work as an archivist for the Royal Anthropology Institute and then as a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Manchester.

2- When and how did you become involved in a hybrid art/science practice?

My research has always been based in Japan and since 2007 has focused on the political ecology of toxicants produced by the US bases in Okinawa, Japan concentrating on the negative effects of military aircraft noise on health and habitus. This work began through a chance meeting with a Japanese acoustic scientist Professor Hiramatsu from Kyoto University who had led a long term epidemiological study into the problem of sound pollution around airbases in Okinawa. Our collaboration was based on an interest in addressing the public understanding of the acoustic science formula and measuring mechanisms being applied in Okinawa and accounting for the experiences of individuals which lay outside the parameters of acoustic science. The forms for representing this work were developed through another chance meeting with a sound artist, Professor Angus Carlyle from the University of the Arts, London, leading to a combined art-science-social science practice. This practice-led research approach lay behind successful bids to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, British Academy, Wellcome Trust and Toyota Foundation and a variety of international exhibitions of our work.

3- What have been the major obstacles to overcome?

The major obstacles have been the absence of institutional recognition for this kind of collaboration which crosses disciplinary boundaries and falls outside the essential Higher Education measuring mechanisms for evaluating research in terms of its metrical contribution to a disciplinary norm. Also, the grants which provide proper funding for artistic production rarely offer overhead costs and replacement salaries so they are not highly valued by the institution. Given the absence of ‘buy-out’ time these projects must happen in the time left over from other academic duties, during vacation periods.

4- What have been the greatest opportunities/breakthroughs?

The greatest break though was offered through the introduction of a new criteria for evaluating research in UK HE, called ‘impact’. This criteria was designed to show the public relevance of academic research by developing a narrative that linked original research ideas with policy discussions and initiatives. Uncertainty about what kinds of projects this might involve and what constituted evidence of impact provided an opportunity for our hybrid practice to achieve some institutional purchase and ‘research power’.

The rubric of ‘impact allowed us to show the academic merit of an art exhibition project supported by the Wellcome Trust that was based on acoustic science and brought to bear an anthropological perspective on the lived experience of locals living near – and even within – two Japanese airports. In combining anthropological research with art practice, the exhibition was seen to support progress in noise negotiations and improved understanding about the negative health impacts caused by constant exposure to unwanted sound. In the terms of ‘impact’ the measurable benefits of the exhibition included:

• A raised awareness among key stakeholders including an airport mayor, anti-airport protestors and local farmers.

• An enhanced public appreciation of the effects of aircraft noise. This was assisted by positive coverage in several newspapers, including the Mainichi Shimbun (3.45 million daily readers).

• The exhibition serving as a mechanism for addressing, and ultimately breaching, a long-standing impasse in noise negotiations.

More information is at:

5- What would you do differently, knowing then what you know now ?

I would establish criteria such as ‘impact’ through which to frame the hybrid practice as a project that the institution recognizes and can offer support for. I would also take full advantage of the credit accruing from jointly authored works which may be normative in science but less so in social science or humanities. Planning a series of targeted outcomes that takes advantage of the specialisms of the individuals in the collaboration but which all members of the team share the benefits of is an effective way of showing how an ‘art project’ can be productive.

6- Any advices to someone who may want to walk in your footstep?

Take pleasure in the work and the process of making the work for its own sake as much as for the potential academic value recognized by HE institutions because the institutional process of evaluating its merit is unreliable. The art-science-social science project described above was described as ‘unclassifiable’ in internal reviews but as the official feedback from the national research panel evaluating its impact said: “The case study on Aircraft Noise was judged to be outstanding” and was awarded the highest rating

7. Add other questions and your responses you think are relevant.


So here is announcing the Afrofuturism Channel On Creative Disturbance


We are delighted to announce the Creative Disturbance Afrofuturism channel: 

As we document the work of pionniers in art/science/technology on our Pioneers and Pathbreakers Channel:

It was pointed out by Creative Disturbance producer Poe Johnson, that we were inevitably featuring Pioneers that were in the Academy of Higher Education, and the culture surrounding these institutions,

But Poe pointed out that many of the pioneers of appropriating the digital were in popular culture and were being ignored. Poe is launching an initiative to reach out into popular culture.

One area that has cross-pollinated between popular and academic culture is the area of AfroFuturism, a movement that is alive and well as we have also been discovering through the Virtual Africa Channel: 

So here is announcing the Afrofuturism Chanel  On Creative Disturbance with a first podcast:

Other Planes covers all things Afrofuturism 

Hosted by tobias c. van Veen

Other Planes covers all things Afrofuturism from Planet Earth to the beyond. Hosted by renegade theorist and tactical turntablist tobias c. van Veen, Other Planes features soundposts, audio journeys, and interviews with Afrofuturists from all star systems, from emcees to philosophers, scribes to scholars, painters to poets, artists and MythScientists to DJs. Always evolving, Afrofuturism names science fictional expressions of the Afrodiaspora and African continent that reimagine blackness by drawing upon the past to infiltrate new futures into the present. Today Afrofuturism is but one concept in the constellation of the the black speculative arts movement, from Afrosurrealism to Afrocentrism. Other Planes delves into the multiverse of the black speculative arts, including black science fiction, film, and comix; black cosplay and alien becomings; philosophies of radical black ontology, the black fantastic, and posthumanism; futuristic black politics and remix culture; and the many sounds of black electronic, experimental, new griot, and machine music. Expect all shapes and forms of the interstellar imaginary on Other Planes.


The first Other Planes podcast features Chicago-based author, filmmaker and innovator Ytasha Womack, author of Afrofuturism: The World of Black Sci-Fi and Fantasy, and director of the black science fiction film Bar Star City.

Roger Malina



I hope you are following the podcasts on our CREATIVE DISTURBANCE podcast platform for the Art Science field of fields ! 

One of our ambitions is to be truly MULTI-LINGUAL …we accept podcasts in any language spoken at least by two people !! talking about art/science/technology and culture …

to date we have









We are about to open new channels in South Sudan, Mexico, Sweden…

If you would like to publish a podcast in another language-contact me rmalina()

Roger Malina

Is Art-Science Bad Art and Bad Science ? Follow the raging argument in the Mercado Central exchange


We have been having a heated discussion on the YASMIN discussion list: you can subscribe and contribute to the discussion at

You can just follow the discussion on this blog, or by subscribing to 

Art-science professionals are participating and giving their “lessons learned” 

The discussion has honed into some sprited discussions following the very negative review  of  Ryoji Ikeda by a reviewer who shall remain un-named


Here is a very very negative review of Ryoji’s Ikeda’s art installation resulting from his cern residency

Should art respond to science? On this evidence, the answer is simple: no way
Japanese artist Ryoji Ikeda’s installation Supersymmetry is inspired by his residency at Cern –
but signifies little more than that physics is weird. Isn’t it time we stopped expecting artists to understand the complexities of science?

this is very much along the lines of my colleague Jean Marc Levy=Lebond’s book ‘Science is not art’ where he attacks
much of the mystification of art science practice

the review ends with:

Art<> and science, we feel, should have something to say to each other. But perhaps they speak different languages after all. I don’t speak the language of science too
well, either, but I do know one thing: it is concerned with the wonder of nature. There is a depressing lack of wonder in this technically sophisticated but intellectually and emotionally empty art.

would be interested in Yasminer reactions= has anyone seen the work ?

roger malina

Dear Roger & Fellow Yasminers,

One of the crucial differences between art and science is that art represents and expresses the views of the artist. Art also involves a viewer or receiver. As Duchamp used to say, the viewer completes the work of art. But this isn’t merely Duchamp’s opinion: this is a fundamental proposition of symbolic interactionism as a method in the social sciences, and this is the core understanding of hermeneutics. For a deeper discussion of these issues, I have posted Herbert Blumer’s concise, elegant discussion of the methodological perspective of symbolic interaction in the teaching documents section of my Academia page at URL:

The clarity and precision of the natural sciences arises from the fact that the equations and propositions of natural science reflect and represent a world that should be the same to all viewers. While there are often differences of opinion about the truth, correctness, or value of what any one scientist or research team may represent about the physical world, there are also reasonably common standards that permit us to reach a common view over time.

One of Albert Einstein’s great papers of 1905 was his paper on Brownian motion. He published this at a time when no one was yet able to physically see an atom. Many scientists doubted the physical reality of atomic theory — and this included a great many scientists who accepted the hypothetical use of atomic theory for heuristic or didactic purposes while doubting the physical reality of atomism.

Einstein’s paper, “On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in Liquids at Rest Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat”
examined several well-known physical and chemical facts, drawing together well established evidence to demonstrate the physical reality of atoms. As a result, many scientists who had been skeptical about the reality of atoms became convinced that atoms were, in fact, real. You can read the paper (in Satchel 1998: 71-98) for yourself on my Academia page at URL:

The key issue between these two kinds of discussions is the difference between the ways in which we can understand human beings, how they think, how they behave, and what their behaviour means — including those forms of human behaviour that include speech acts, and the artefacts of behaviour in the form of written texts and works of art.

Not only do human actions change over time, but the meanings of human actions change over time. What’s more, the understanding of human actions, human artefacts, and their meaning undergo translation by everyone who hears, sees, or participates in any action.

An atom of carbon will be the same as any other atom of carbon in the universe. Gravitation is the same force wherever we can look and wherever we can measure it. Certain predictable factors account for measurable differences — different isotopes of any element, differences in the strength of gravity on the surface of a large planet as against the force of gravity in space outside the pantry atmosphere.

In contrast, my idea of a good beer may differ to the ideas of those five people at the table next to me. I’ll order a bottle of India Pale Ale from the case and not the refrigerator while the next table has five frosty glasses of house lager on tap. Someone may enjoy Aaron Copland’s film scores while someone else might prefer Danny Elfman’s work, and yet another person might enjoy them equally. One viewer may love Ryoji Ikeda’s work and another may not. I am puzzled about the multimillion dollar sums that Jeff Koons’s work take at auction when someone can buy a beautiful print by Dieter Roth or a painting by Dick Higgins for a 5-figure sum.

It is for this reason that I read Jonathan Jones’s review of Ryoji Ikeda’s Supersymmetry installation without too much feeling either way. The artist responded to scientific ideas, but Ikeda’s installation is art and not science. It is very much the same thing as a musician composing works to reflect a sense of what early astronomers called “the music of the spheres.” Jones’s review tells me what Jones thinks — it doesn’t tell me what I think.

I haven’t seen the installation for myself, so I have no idea about it from first-hand experience. I did read the review, but the review doesn’t seem any more harsh than other kinds of reviews. If you want to read some truly withering criticism, take a look at Nicolas Slonimsky’s Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven’s Time. I suppose that a similar collection may exist for visual art, but I haven’t seen it. There are two interesting books of rejection letter from publishers and others, however. One is Bill Shapiro’s Other People’s Rejection Letters: Relationship Enders, Career Killers, and 150 Other Letters You’ll Be Glad You Didn’t Receive. The other is Rotten Rejections: The Letters That Publishers Wish They’d Never Sent by Andre Bernard.

Duchamp used to say “posterity will be the judge.” We’ll eventually find out whether Ikeda’s work or Jones’s opinion prevails.



Ken Friedman,

Dear list,

I have not seen the work (I suspect the piece resembles other pieces by Ikeda I have seen and liked), but a scathing review by Jonathan Jones I would certainly put on my CV…

In my view he is one of these rather surprising cases (opera being another) where it seems that art critics of the Guardian are just not the right people to review anything conceived after the industrial revolution.

not a very thorough response, I admit,

kind regards,

Joost Rekveld. 

Dear Roger,

A very interesting set of questions to arise at this point in time of intense mutual admiration between art and science and lack of responsible criticism in the arts and as science falls prey to conservative doubting, at least in States, and what I would argue is an over determination from technology sectors in education.

Perhaps it’s not so much that artists should “understand” or take a deeply creative interest in mimicking science in their practices,  but that  both can learn different sets of questions and directions for research from each other and that deep critique both positive and negative is needed in both fields. We have enough problems to solve on this planet!

I had a chat with Erik Davis after a presentation he did about psychedelia in which he screened early CIA scientific experiments with LSD – controlled in a white office, with clock, with men in ties. If this is “objectivity” about the type of mystical experience possible on psilocybin then scientists have missed something crucial about aesthetics and sensual pleasure in affecting mind-alteration. He also talked about a recent study done at Johns Hopkins where it was determined that there was some kind of universally-had mystical experience. Presumably this more recent study used control environments more conducive to tripping than the CIA did in the sixties.

My point being that Science could gain important insights into how it is posing questions and proving its ideas from artists and artists would do well not to treat their own practices as if Art were for  producing results that need to be proved–what has seemed a creeping concern in both criticism and practice and a peculiar (funding driven?) demand on artists in the last decade.

Molly Hankwitz, PhD
Independent scholar, curator, editor
Bivoulab “scientist” 

Hello Molly,

Your post is nicely stated.

In reflection, the arts covers a very large domain of forms.  I’m not sure
that gaming lacks scientific method if it were to be translated into the
language of gaming and the skills for programming, texturing, layering, etc.
of the game itself. If it functions, then it has completed its proof of
concept. Same with dance, music, etc. when these fields meet the level of
scholarship and aesthetic required. But when we start getting into
experimental fields that do not have a baseline it becomes more difficult.

But in art/science, I take science very seriously in my biodesign work and 
would not consider it true science if the experiments outcome had not been
inherently repeatable, proven over and over again, and then written up and
reviewed by blind peer review, and then  published in a scientific Journal.

Art should not have to prove itself, but if it is claiming to be scientific
it must imho.


Dr. Natasha Vita-More 

Hi Roger and all

I missed it unfortunately – but I did hear great things about this event
from curator/producers who understand this kind of work and there was a
real buzz about the project in London when it was taking place.

You can sample a bit of it and read other perspectices from more
informed voices here:

I think broader questions are ‘why do even high profile big budget
art-science related works rarely get reviewed in mainstream press’ or
‘why do they receive such poor (as in poorly researched) reviews when
this does happen’….which are difficult questions to
answer——suspect Joost is right. One wouldn’t look to The Guardian or
its reviewers for an informed perspective on Ikeda and this kind of
practice which comes from a root that would not be familiar to them.  It
is like they are being sent off to review a work without having any
knowledge of the artist’s professional trajectory up to this point so
this doesn’t get mentioned nor does any reference get made to the
context within which the CERN residency took place (ie a whole history
of such encounters).   So the old chestnut of art and science and their
mutual mis/understanding becomes the focus of this tired and trite
commentary. Sadly while reviewers such as Jones might think they are
being provocative in fact fewer and fewer people are listening
….certainly the audiences for this kind of work (which are enormous
and increasingly youthful) have slipped well beyond the orbit of the
newspaper’s sphere of influence.

Ken, Joost
Yes indeed the Jones review and your points reinforce many of the uneasy
Discussions about “art in service of science’ and “science in service of art”=
There is a whole range of practices between these two ends of the spectrum
And Jones clearly wants=he says
“Isn’t it time we stopped expecting artists to understand the complexities of science?..
This is not a work of art about physics. It is a work of art about how crazy everything is. That’s a trivial misunderstanding of what goes on at Cern, surely.”

Presumably he would pan the stained glass windows at Chartres as insufficiently
Explanatory , and yes Duchamp the viewer completes the work of art…

Ken you state:” The key issue between these two kinds of discussions is the difference between the ways in which we can understand human beings, how they think, how they behave, and what their behaviour means — including those forms of human behaviour that include speech acts, and the artefacts of behaviour in the form of written texts and works of art.”

Another take on this point comes from” Slingerland’s Creating Consilience
Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities” where he argues for a different axis
Of thinking which looks at how we have to shift points of view as we change scale
In space ( nano, mico, mill, km, light year) or time ( pico, milli, year, millennium, billion)
Or group size ( individual, duo, group, community, country, civilization)- the concept
Of the humanities only makes sense at certain scales- just as quantum mechanics is
Not the right frame of the behavior of trees.

So I certainly subscribe to the ways of knowing argument- but its not just
Art or science, it’s also an interleaving of different approaches at different scales
And as we know from the sciences of complexity and emergence even
The concept of causality changes

If anyone has seen Ryoji’s Ikeda’s work it would be great to have a witness
Report !


I saw Ikeda’s work in London. I really liked it – the aesthetics (of
which the noise is a vital part), the overwhelming impressions and
sensations of light and vibration and attempts to systemise vast
complexity. Once could understand how Ikeda was responding emotionally
to the mind-boggling science at CERN, but doing so through his own
immense and extraordinary process. For me it conveyed well, almost at an
intuitive level, the vast physical undertaking and intellectual
complexity of high energy theoretical physics. It was stunning and
intriguing. It couldn’t have been conceived without visiting CERN. What
more is needed?

I don’t wish to discuss Jones’ views, as to do so simply rewards his
clickbait writing style. Being the Guardian art critic in the UK, he is
hard to avoid,


Gaston Bachelard makes the point that &quot;bad science can produce good art.&quot;
His books reveal how what was once taken to be scientific fact can become a
poetics that retains a psychological truth even when it can no longer claim
any scientific legitimacy. Ordinary language still carries along the
imagery of how we used to imagine the word–and ideas we no longer accept
as scientific may still condition our experience of the world.

I have only seen Ikeda’s work in online videos, so it is particularly
difficult to know how to react to it. I do use other works of his in class
as examples both of simplicity of means and large scale immersive
environments. I read the review some time ago, and found it irritating–the
sort of &quot;let’s be sure you know my opinion&quot; writing that for me is the
opposite of what I imagine good art criticism should be. Rather that
offering readers analysis that would allow the reader to form her own
understanding Ikeda’s work, the critic decides what is good and what is
bad. But that’s the pattern of most newspaper criticism for you.

On the other hand, I think that there is a point to be made about artists
learning the language of science in ways that go beyond the facile.
Complexity and chaos theory have been particularly misconstrued–consider
the innumerable times &quot;the butterfly effect&quot; is dropped into conversation.
There is a tendency of artists to skim the surface, pluck a few metaphors,
and consider that their work is done.


— Paul 

Dear Guillermo, Roger, and all,


I’d like to add to the mercado some observations from the Moon Vehicle project (2008-10). This was a project I mentored in Bangalore as an artist and I’m just going to say a few things about why scientists from the Chandrayaan Moon mission and science institutes in the city began to work with us.
It took me a long time to understand that the scientists who worked with us were not doing so necessarily because we were doing an interesting art project, or because of the quality of what we were doing! We attracted participation because we presented an opportunity for the scientists who joined in to achieve something of their own – to push forward certain of their own agendas to which they found themselves in a delimited capacity to change through any other means.
From the art and design side I think this sense of a delimited capacity to act through other means was also exactly why Moon Vehicle began in the first place (based at Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, an idea that came out of the Bangalore Space, Arts and Culture symposium in 2007, ideated by Geetha Narayanan, Sundar Sarukkai, Roger Malina, Rob La Frenais and Nicola Triscott, Meena vari among others and initially tutored by Gabriel Harp at Srishti’s Centre for Experimental Media Arts). 
Moon Vehicle was in many ways an activist project and motivated as a protest against the exclusion of the arts and humanities from the cognitive, conceptual and workspaces of space mission design. The activities of the two-year project staked a claim – graphically (ideas of ‘counter-visuality and ‘performing heterogeneity’ Nicholas Mirzoeff and Daphne Brooks for instance seemed relevant) and from the apparent serendipity of events the art/science project created opportunities and platforms otherwise not available.
One such opportunity that I noticed revealed why scientists joined forces with ‘creatives’ happened during a press conference for a very significant event that came out of the two-year process. In 2010 Srishti collaborated with the Indian space agency (ISRO) and the Indian Institute of Astrophysics to stage a first-of-its-kind public festival of astronomy called Kalpaneya Yatre: Journey of Imaginations. At the press conference the official from the Public Relations office of ISRO stood up and said to the cameras that they had specially provided for the exhibition models of the spacecraft, rockets and large antenna dishes which the public otherwise did not have access to. 
Immediately after, one of the ISRO scientists who had been collaborating with us (and in fact whose idea the festival had been) stood up from behind the cameras and stated very forcefully that the reason the festival had been put on was to convey the science of multi-wavelength astronomy to the public.
It was then that it dawned on me that this is what the transdisciplinarity, the hybrid and shared activities had been about all along for our fellow collaborators (I mean at least in part and something that hadn’t been apparent to me before that point). The science of the Moon mission was what scientists working on the mission wanted, very passionately, to convey to a wider public. The official ISRO sources of public information turned the mission into a set of icons, exhibited usually as trophies (some exceptions to this). The art project had presented, however tenuously, an opportunity to sidestep the political assimilation of the technology and for the makers of the mission to take matters into their own hands. 
The scientists themselves, it was demonstrably clear, were absolutely sure that multi-wavelength astronomy could be conveyed and should be shared. Something of the history of social activism within science in India helps in contextualising these sensibilities further. But this is one example of many kinds of ways that activity generated from the ambivalence and chaos (and Temporary Autonomous Zones that John Hopkins referenced of Hakim Bey) that art/science encounters can create, come to be used and why they are propagated. 


I found Alyce Santoro’s comment to do with the proposed pipeline through Big Bend National Park (a place I also love) important and resonant here: 


” Who is left to fight, and to point out this conflict of interest? The answer is artists, students, self-employed and retired people, and others without affiliations or anything much to lose.” 


because there is also much to say about how agendas and motivations become shared and passed between participants in such interactions, such that those with more to lose (the government employed scientists) could work through the ‘artists,’ who, in the case of Moon Vehicle for sure were willing scapegoats, willingly disruptive of the status quo!


All best,




Dr. Joanna Griffin Teaching Fellow, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India


Dear Roger

I have not seen Ryoji Ikeda=E2=80=99s present installation, although in =
photographs it looks impressive. I cannot, therefore, specifically =
respond to Jonathan Jones=E2=80=99 critique of it. Generally speaking, I =
have some sympathy for his view, but in my experience, it is very easy =
to be critical of work and even to agree with the criticism of others =
but it is a very different matter to be positive and make clear what one =
does like or is inspired by. It is only on hearing which artists working =
on that edge between art and science Jonathan Jones would find =
inspiring, if any, that you begin to understand what he is about.=20

My response to this interesting question =20

Liliane Lijn

Dear Ken and Fellow Yasminers

Of course the letters that publishers wish they had never sent is a good
way to view Jones’ review.

I’ve been reading Susan Sontag’s essay on Camp and that’s the sort of
writing that we are looking for – sensitive and evocative responses to
the sorts of work that we are interested in and involved with. Writing
that draws out the sensibilities of the work and provides us with a
frame of reference for understanding.

But remember that Jones’ review might have prompted more people to visit
the installation, more people to have arguments about the relationship
between art and science and more people to appreciate Ikeda’s art.
Sometimes you have to slag something off to get people to pay attention
to it.

But the world is not only the Turner Prize, any news is good news, no
such things as bad publicity.

We actually need good critical writing to explore what the work means to
the audience (bearing in mind that as Ken so rightly highlights there is
no direct connection between the artist’s intention and the audiences’
reception of the work). The critic is the audiences’ voice, the way the
artist hears back. I’m not meaning to simplify the critic or to remove
the power relations, the connection between critic and collector, etc.
But we know we need high quality criticism and we know that we need it
more than ever now.

For what its worth my cues for writing good criticism are Helen
Molesworth, Susan Sontag and Grant Kester.


On 28/05/2016 12:12, Ken Friedman wrote:
&gt; Dear Roger &amp; Fellow Yasminers,
&gt; One of the crucial differences between art and science is that art represents and expresses the views of the artist. Art also involves a viewer or receiver. As Duchamp used to say, the viewer completes the work of art. But this isn’t merely Duchamp’s opinion: this is a fundamental proposition of symbolic interactionism as a method in the social sciences, and this is the core understanding of hermeneutics. For a deeper discussion of these issues, I have posted Herbert Blumer’s concise, elegant discussion of the methodological perspective of symbolic interaction in the teaching documents section of my Academia page at URL:
&gt; The clarity and precision of the natural sciences arises from the fact that the equations and propositions of natural science reflect and represent a world that should be the same to all viewers. While there are often differences of opinion about the truth, correctness, or value of what any one scientist or research team may represent about the physical world, there are also reasonably common standards that permit us to reach a common view over time.
&gt; One of Albert Einstein’s great papers of 1905 was his paper on Brownian motion. He published this at a time when no one was yet able to physically see an atom. Many scientists doubted the physical reality of atomic theory — and this included a great many scientists who accepted the hypothetical use of atomic theory for heuristic or didactic purposes while doubting the physical reality of atomism.
&gt; Einstein’s paper, “On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in Liquids at Rest Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat”
&gt; examined several well-known physical and chemical facts, drawing together well established evidence to demonstrate the physical reality of atoms. As a result, many scientists who had been skeptical about the reality of atoms became convinced that atoms were, in fact, real. You can read the paper (in Satchel 1998: 71-98) for yourself on my Academia page at URL:
&gt; The key issue between these two kinds of discussions is the difference between the ways in which we can understand human beings, how they think, how they behave, and what their behaviour means — including those forms of human behaviour that include speech acts, and the artefacts of behaviour in the form of written texts and works of art.
&gt; Not only do human actions change over time, but the meanings

Hello all,

Maybe, in the opposite direction we can find examples like “Colliderscope”,
which is a collaboration between scientists and artists in the Niels Bohr
Institute with data from CERN.

I really like this project, but maybe in some art context it could be read
as a simple idea, or maybe it is not exploited all the artistic potential.
However, the science is totally considered in this project, reproducing the
data in the same detection geometry that is recorded in CERN instalations.


Picking up a previous strand, scientist Craig Hilton answers the questions
On his career as a scientist involved in the arts- his self questioning
Ties in with our discussion about the status of art science in the art world
And the career advice for young hybrids

Roger malina

Craig Hilton

1- what is your background as a scientist? In the arts, design or humanities ?
PhD Biochemistry (genetics), cancer research, immunology
Otago University, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber, University of Massachusetts
MFA, University of Auckland, Elam School of Fine Arts
Religious upbringing, Father -Minister of the church (protestant, Christian)

2- when and how did you become involved in a hybrid art/science practice?
I became interested in art through science. While sometimes science allows big questions, it mostly does not (for most scientists). Art is always enticing in that regard. I was also lucky enough to study at a university that mixed students of different disciplines and so had many friends across science and art. My long-term interest in photography (initially through mountaineering) allowed me to put together reasonable portfolio which (alongside my PhD) opened the door to an Arts Masters programme. My interests in photography has not waned but I no longer take photographs and my art practice is no longer media driven.

3- what have been the major obstacles to overcome?
Isolation.  I have sort out other hybrid-type folk over the years.   For me the key to the hybridity is to maintain genuine understanding of the art and the science / attempt genuine value across.  Thus is not easy – I once commented in an interview – it is like being bisexual when nobody will sleep with you.
Despite the general agreement that we are beyond objects in art -ideas still struggle and art is often focused on the media and less the idea.

4- what have been the greatest opportunities/breakthroughs?
a. Acknowledgement of work by scientific and art communities (especially- The Immortalisation of Bily Apple -an ongoing project)
b. Attention of Science Communication community towards arts a means to initiate much-needed conversation. However, I am provoked by Oron Catts’ informal comment made to a scientist colleague in response to the scientist requesting the work work in a certain way – We are not here to make you life easy . I entitled a talk to science communicators with this Catts quote…walking a fine line between traitor and advocate possibly.

5- what would you do differently, knowing then what you know now?
Not too much big picture-wise-this is by nature difficult.   Lots of things when it comes to details.

6- any advices to someone who may want to walk in your footstep?
Like any art practice, the work needs to be informed. There needs to be more to it than an artist fiddling with the tools of science or a scientist presenting the images of science in an art context.  Study for a while.

7. Add other questions and your responses you think are relevant
Does it matter?
I am convinced it does. The influence of science and technology remains largely uncontested by culture. What can happen will happen. Advances in molecular and cellular biology and the application of resulting technologies have vastly increased not just our understanding of the foundation and mechanisms of life but also our ability to adjust life according to our whim and needs. Artists have a unique opportunity to represent communities and engage science and technology, directly addressing the tension between society and the scientific community.  Art can be an effective way of stimulating debate and engaging people with biotechnology and the ethical questions it raises. 


Hello, Yasminers.

The recent comments on the differences between individual art in the modern studio tradition and art arising from communities reminded me of an intriguing article by Bengt af Klintberg, the Swedish folklorist and Fluxus artist.

In 1993, af Klintberg published an interesting article titled “Fluxus Games and Contemporary Folklore: on the Non-Individual Character of Fluxus Art” in the journal Konsthistorisk Tidskrift Vol. LXII, No. 2. The article is in English so anyone who find the topic interesting can read this.

You will find the article in the “teaching documents” section of my Academia page at URL:

The article will remain available until Saturday, June 4.

Af Klintberg draws interesting parallels between activities arising in and from communities. Folklore, fables, stories, myths and tales — as well as games — are one such range of activities. Many kinds of art are another.

For those who are interest in learning more about af Klintberg and his work, I have also posted the full text of his 1967 booklet, The Cursive Scandinavian Slave. Originally published by the Something Else Press, it was reprinted by UbuWeb in the Ubu Classics series.

Warm wishes,


Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | Launching in 2015

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Austr

From: Joanna Griffin <>

Dear all,

To add to the comments of Liliane Lijn and Chris Fremantle, I yearn for the intellect of Rosalind Krauss and Leo Steinberg to help contextualise what the activity of artists encountering science as laboratory, as scientist, as activity, history, dress-sense, soundscapes, cultures, etc…. tells us about more elusive shifts. What is made more visible? The articles by Krauss that I now read on microfiche from the 70s and 80s point to how artistic practices make visible more elusive shifts in conditions in the world in which we live. It is perhaps that refocus provided by artworks as catalysts that is missing in commentaries

In thinking (nostalgically) about the absence and role of the art critic, in 2002 the UK-based curator Claire Doherty wrote very perceptively about my work and it was incredibly useful for my own professional development, but in a sense it also modelled interpretation and the intellectual depth to which artists pitch when making work. I wonder if other artists embarked on PhDs, like myself, to do the job of articulating context, articulating the “frame of reference for understanding” that Chris Fremantle mentions is so valuable, specifically because of the absence otherwise of adequate written reflection. In particular an absence in the face of the practices considered in this list, and the need to think carefully about the shifts that artists have made (not to mention anthropologists) towards the critical interpretation of aspects of science and technology.

It seems a luxury now to have another person take the time to do such critical appraisals that provide as Chris Fremantle has written “the way the artist hears back.” At the same time writing by artists takes new turns. But its also relevant to think about how artists with curators and art agencies have shifted audience inside their work, and the extent to which this is a pattern for artists responding to and engaging with science. I know this was something I did to provide access to an experience and to bring ‘audiences’ with me on the journey, so shifting to a more participative approach. That was one solution, anyhow, and the solutions keep changing! In terms of this discussion though, I can link the loss of the reflection of the art critic to a re-structuring of the mechanisms for reflection by ‘persons-formerly-known-as-audience’ on and through creative practice.

best wishes,


ken friedman

Dear Yasminers,

Joanna Griffin’s recent post brought up the important issue of context. This is a central challenge for every field, not just art criticism. Friedrich Schleiermacher discussed the importance of context in relation to hermeneutics. His argument was that every interpretive effort — in this case, art criticism — requires at least two steps. First, the interpreter must understand and convey to the reader what the creator of a text (or an art work) meant in the context of its time. Second, the interpreter must create his or her own interpretation.

Hegel discusses the importance of context in his _Introduction to the Lectures on the History of Philosophy_. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.) For Hegel, context is a paramount issue of context, of which he writes: “No one can escape from the substance of his time any more than he can jump out of his skin” (p. 112).

Interestingly, a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times discusses this same point in relation to replicating studies in psych0logy.

The New York Times article is titled “Why Do So Many Studies Fail to Replicate?”. It discusses the issue of replication. Some of the issues in this article are relevant to understanding or describing art, as well as having significance to art-science experiments. So far, there has been little effort spent in attempting to replicate artistic experiments, but this may not always be the case. To the degree that art-science experiments may have wide significance, then some form of replication should be possible. If this is not the case, then a great deal of art-science would only be some form of artistic commentary about science, rather than achieving some form of genuine hybrid art-science experimentation. For real experiment and attempts to replicate, context is vitally important. (As Joanna wrote, this is also crucial for understanding art.)

Over the past few years, there has been an important project in the field of psychology titled the Reproducibility Project. The article in the New York Times by Dr. Jay Van Bavel of New York University of New York University discusses the issues and challenges of the project — and the challenges of replication in any field that works with human beings rather than natural or physical phenomena. In my view, artistic experimentation is a form of communication, so it inevitably involves human beings rather than the pure study of scientific phenomena.

Here are Van Bavel’s first three paragraphs:


Last year, a colleague asked me if I would send her the materials needed to try to replicate one of my published papers — that is, to rerun the study to see if its findings held up. “I’m not trying to attack you or anything,” she added apologetically.

I laughed. To a scientist, replication is like breathing. Successful replications strengthen findings. Failed replications root out false claims and help refine imprecise ones. Testing and retesting make science what it is.

But I understood why my colleague was being delicate. Around that time, the largest replication project in the history of psychology was underway. This initiative, called the Reproducibility Project, reran 100 studies published in prominent psychology journals.


You will find the complete article at:



This op-ed piece is based on article by Van Bavel, Peter Mende-Siedlecki, William J. Brady and Diego A. Reinero in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled: &quot;Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility.”

Here is the abstract:


In recent years, scientists have paid increasing attention to reproducibility. For example, the Reproducibility Project, a large-scale replication attempt of 100 studies published in top psychology journals found that only 39% could be unambiguously reproduced. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the lack of reproducibility in psychology and other fields stems from various methodological factors, incl



Whats going on in South Sudan. Cairo, Kenya, South Africa= Virtual Africa Illuminates the Dark Culture


If you havent been following the Virtual Africa Channel on Creative Disturbance platform, producer Yvan Tina has been connecting all over the African Continent and its diasporas – an AfroFuturism channel is about to be launched. I have ironically called the world hidden from the first pages of search engines- the ‘dark culture’ in analogy to ‘dark matter’ – astronomers have been studiyng matter that emits light since the beginning of humanity, but it turns out most of the universe is made from dark matter that emits no light. We are suffering from a similar myopia as the web privileges the most visible sites, and with the law of networks the big nodes get bigger.

I just returned from Colombia South America,  and came away impressed with the vitality and originality of the work of the art science technology community.

Part of the mission of the Creative Disturbance platform is to enable ‘intellectual dating’ or helping people meet each other and collaborate  and its rewarding to see the intellectual dating taking place !

We have created a google group for all those in Colombia planning to attend ISEA 2017 in Manizales , or for those outside who are planning to come- it you are interested in joining this networking group send me an email at rmalina(at)

In the meantime find out whats going on in Virtual Africa: South Sudan, South Africa, Kenya, Egypt and more


Hollywood of South Sudan.. PeaceHackCamp…

Striving to become the “Hollywood of South Sudan”, Kapital Movie Industry is a network of visionary young artists, documentarists, Graphic Designers, Filmmakers, Web Designers, Film Directors and Visual Effect Artists who are interested in telling the story of their new country and helping to build its future. With the PeaceHackCamp they organize each year, the aim to engage with youth using graphic technology, cinema and video to promote peace in South Sudan. In this podcast, Bakahika Bruno, KMIC’s operational manger, talks about his visions for the future of African cinema and the technical (and economical) difficulties they encounter in order for new talents to emerge.


In Christina de Middel’s website, one can read the following: “In 1964 a Zambian science teacher named Edwuard Makuka decided to train the first African crew to travel to the moon. His plan was to use an aluminium rocket to put a woman, two cats and a missionary into Space”. Unfortunately the project never came to fruition but the expression, coined by Makuka, has been adopted in space culture. This podcast is an interview of Mandla Maseko, the first black African to travel into space, more than fifty years after Edwuard Makuka’s initiative. 

Young Designer in Cario makes the world a better place

Nora Abushadi is a talented designer who has been developing several projects touching, for example, upon the implementation of a multi-sensorial dining experience in Cairo and a speculative design for costume and stage designers, or even the destruction of literary culture by islamic extremists. Nora is a Virtual Africa Fellowship and has been awarded the Creative Disturbance Grants intended for international students.

Land Of Milk and Honey repays their debt in Kenya

The journey from our homes in Kenya to the US, also known to many as the “land of milk and honey,” is embarked on as an opportunity to excel in our chosen industries. In excelling, Dr. Jakki Opollo has exceeded all milestones and stands out in a sea of nurses as a top nurse. She has been a nurse for 14 years and currently serves as the Director of Professional Practice & Nursing Research at Parkland Health & Hospital System. In this podcast she sheds light on how emerging media plays a significant role in the health industry.

Roger Malina

Join us in Columbia June 2017 and make constructive art science technology trouble


I am just leaving Columbia after two weeks days of exciting work in Manizales, Bogota and Medellin, Columbia. All I can tell you is that

there is something unusual going on here with a perfect storm of social communities and the art science technology community. In Manizales it was

Balance Unbalance conference on art and climate change ( ), in Bogota the work of the Planetarium and

their developing projects on art, science technology and the city ( ) and in Medellin the Communicating

Astronomy with the Public conference ( ) hosted by the ExploraParque ) with their Collaboratorio iniative ) with the vibrant hacker and

maker community that is deeply social embedded in a country that is emerging from the dark ages of drug cartel and guerilla warfare.

With Ricardo Dal Farra, Andres Burbano ( Leonardo LEAF international Liaison) we are mobilising to attend ISEA 2017 here and to help make some

unusual things happen that make local sense. If you would like to join us in brainstorming contact me or you cal also join the redcatsur discussion

list on art science technology in latin america (!forum/redcatsur )

Felipe Londono, Rector of the University of Caldas in Manizales will be hosting ISEA 2017 June 12-16 2017

ISEA 2017 invites to reflect on the contributions that art, design, and technology provide as alternatives for social development based on respect for natural biodiversity and having pacific coexistence of the communities. ISEA 2017 welcomes submissions in three broad categories: academic (papers, posters, panels, and institutional presentations), creative (artworks, installations, performances, and design cases) and learning (workshops and tutorials).
Roger Malina


Roger Malina in Medellin Colombia on Wicked Problems in Art Science Technology


check out Roger Malina at minute 13 on this video

Conclusions of day 1-Cross Fertilising the arts, sciences and new technologies 

A 45 minte overview on whats going on in art science technology today 

Roger Malina