WHAT IS THE GOAL OF ART-SCI : ??
the THIRD CULTURE ARGUMENT ?
SEVERAL GOALS ?
In response to one of the discussions Drew made a comment, below, that the “goal of Art Sci is integration”
Is this really the goal ? Integration of what ? the arts and sciences ? institutionally ?
Intellectually ? Are the new Leonardo’s individuals, teams of people, both. Do we need people who are ‘integrators’ rather than creating a third culture ?
Personally I am less than convinced by the broad Third Culture Claims, or the overarching transcilience claims of E.O Wilson
I think there are very good reasons why we need focused disciplinary domains with people who are deep experts in these domains.
However for many types of problems we have to cross domains to bring together the approaches and content needed for resolution. But I think we have to be careful. I don’t think for instance that inter/trans/disciplinarity is a ‘discipline”; art and biology art science requires different kinds of approaches than say space exploration and music art-sci.
If you google ‘the water problem’ you will find people who argue this way =that for certain kinds of issues we have no choice but to bridge the arts and sciences ( and eventually politics and society at large). Redesigning human culture to mitigate anthropogenic environmental changes clearly requires the best art-sci collaborations we can imaging because the scientific and technical questions are all so deeply culturally embedded.
What is the goal or purpose of stimulating and encouraging ART-SCI?
I will start a separate discussion on the different kinds of art-sci= because i also think we have to be careful about mixing arguments for art sci that is tied to public understanding of science, for instance, to art sci that seeks new discoveries, inventions, or those trying to appropriate the world of science and technology in cultural meaningful expressions.
Roger= here is drew’s initial post
Drew Lesso says:
August 28, 2010 at 4:12 pm (Edit)