International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge
in which I complain about how scientists don't want art and artists don't want science.
I wish I had more time to properly express my displeasure at how difficult it has been to convince either side of the validity of my own special breed of art-science crossover. For all the talk of how important it is to bridge the gap between art and science, to support cross-pollination of ideas, allow hybridization, fund interdisciplinary research, etc., there seems to be a dearth of actual programs relative to my own work. I hope I am just not looking hard enough.
Case in point: I submit my crossover work almost exclusively to new media art shows and art galleries. My success rate with science-themed art shows has been poor---they mainly want traditional art media that has been "informed" by science. And today, as I prepare another submission to one of the few contests on the other side, the International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge, I read the following on their FAQ:
Q: In what category should I submit my science-based art?
A: Unfortunately there is no good category to submit your work. The competition is unable to judge it properly.
I think I actually asked them that question in 2007. How nice of them to remind me that I'm still not wanted.
I'll submit anyway, because a few of the earlier winners seem to have crossed into the art side.
I'd like to work in a world with fewer awards and more recognition for consistently doing creative work. I could spend a significant amount of my time simply applying for grants and awards (as any practicing scientist or artist already knows). But there's an old saying: Awards are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later every asshole gets one. I'd rather not have to play that game, and I am not happy being reminded that even if I play that game, they'll just throw my submission away.
And I am tired of application forms that imply that one cannot possibly be a scientist and an artist at the same time, or that one cannot create science or art without an institutional affiliation.
I wish I had more time to properly express my displeasure at how difficult it has been to convince either side of the validity of my own special breed of art-science crossover. For all the talk of how important it is to bridge the gap between art and science, to support cross-pollination of ideas, allow hybridization, fund interdisciplinary research, etc., there seems to be a dearth of actual programs relative to my own work. I hope I am just not looking hard enough.
Case in point: I submit my crossover work almost exclusively to new media art shows and art galleries. My success rate with science-themed art shows has been poor---they mainly want traditional art media that has been "informed" by science. And today, as I prepare another submission to one of the few contests on the other side, the International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge, I read the following on their FAQ:
Q: In what category should I submit my science-based art?
A: Unfortunately there is no good category to submit your work. The competition is unable to judge it properly.
I think I actually asked them that question in 2007. How nice of them to remind me that I'm still not wanted.
I'll submit anyway, because a few of the earlier winners seem to have crossed into the art side.
I'd like to work in a world with fewer awards and more recognition for consistently doing creative work. I could spend a significant amount of my time simply applying for grants and awards (as any practicing scientist or artist already knows). But there's an old saying: Awards are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later every asshole gets one. I'd rather not have to play that game, and I am not happy being reminded that even if I play that game, they'll just throw my submission away.
And I am tired of application forms that imply that one cannot possibly be a scientist and an artist at the same time, or that one cannot create science or art without an institutional affiliation.