Presenter: Helen Schell, Artist, Space Science Educator and The Human Spaceship Project.
Facilitator: Dr Pearl John, University of Southampton
Panellists: Helen Schell, The Human Spaceship Project, Dr Lorraine Coghill, Durham University, Ellie Mathieson, Artist and Freelance Project Manager, Professor Fiona Crisp, Northumbria University, The Cultural Negotiation of Science (CNoS) Group
Theme: Creative engagement
Reporter: Charlotte Thorley & Helen Schell
One sentence summary: This panel presented projects (primarily from Northeast England) with different perspectives on space science and art collaborations, giving information and advice to the audience and inviting them to share their projects.
Description
The Into Art panel discussion brought five science/art practitioners together giving examples of how art and space science collaborations work, focusing on regional projects in the Northeast of England. The session was facilitated by Dr Pearl John, the outreach and public engagement lead for the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Southampton, who is also a leading holographic artist.
Each of the panellists introduced themselves and their activities, describing a wealth of collaborations in a variety of formats, including:
- Scientists who were also creative practitioners, using art as a method for engagement
- Artist-academics working in tandem with scientists to create new models for the public to connect to, and find agency with, space science and technology.
- Peer-working between scientists and artists, discussing research concepts and shaping the outputs together.
- Arts and theatre practitioners informing their content with science and partnering with scientists to share the accuracy of their content.
Although they were representing different approaches and projects, the panellists had a lot in common, and first amongst this was an acknowledgement that there is a need for equity of support for arts and science. Traditionally, science subjects have more consistency and scale for their funding compared to the arts, yet the subjects grow in parallel and work to support each other. This was well demonstrated by Helen Schell, who showed us a map of Northeast England, showing the mutual growth of space science institutions in areas where artists were actively working, particularly relevant as the Northeast expands its space sector.
The other critical message from panellists was about meeting people and communities “where they are at”. Art and creative approaches to engagement allow for mixed activities in places where the public naturally gather. These are spaces for cultural and scientific learning, giving an opportunity to shape the identities and feelings of the participants.
The wider discussion invited participating scientists, mathematicians and educators from the audience, and some of their featured projects, to talk about how they had been given opportunities to inform artworks, confirming collaboration makes a difference. One mathematician found it genuinely useful to work with visual artists to help understand the concepts of their own work. The Heriot-Watt artist-scientist pairing scheme, ‘Creative Watts’ was mentioned, describing an open idea generating event, to initiate joint ideas for collaboration and subsequent engagement activities.
The idea of what learning and knowledge are, and the impacts of this for the public, was a concept that needs to be developed. Some participants described creating new ways of knowing, enabling the public to consider frontier science and art topics without being experts themselves. On a practical level, this might be about switching up the mechanics of an activity, for example using sound to represent equations, and in that way move beyond one way of knowing to provide a more organic experience of something theoretical – projects such as the CNoS ‘Sensing Remoteness’ Research Group, for example. This was built on by those with experience of dance and theatre projects, showing the value of considering different ways of interacting.
The outcomes that leant themselves to the easiest reporting or most evidenceable impacts aren’t always those that tell the best stories of learning and connection. Some panels for physical sciences, for example, would be looking for more traditional ideas of outreach and learning. Artists need proper funding and consideration if they are to come to the project as equals and in a way that supports their practice, but this is rarely the case within the current system. As one participant put it, fundamentally our research systems have often seen STEM as defining what we know and how we understand humanity. The value we put on the arts and humanities need radically reappraising if we are going to communicate science to ensure the best quality of human life in a complex future.
Key messages
- Collaboration between scientists and artists can be hugely rewarding for everyone involved and promotes new ways of knowing and understanding vital for our futures.
- Arts processes can provide a more equitable and relatable route for the public to engage with complex research topics.
- Theoretical or abstract concepts become more tangible and understandable for both public audiences and the researchers.
- Bringing artists and scientists together as equals from the outset is key for these successful collaborations.
Resources
Sun Space Art project evaluation https://www.sunspaceart.org/sun-space-art-workshops-and-talks/sun-space-art-evaluation/
Ellie Mathieson https://www.eleanormathieson.com/
Helen Schell https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helen-Schell
Fiona Crisp https://materialsight.wordpress.com/
CNoS https://hosting.northumbria.ac.uk/culturalnegotiationofscience/
Pearl John https://www.pearljohn.co.uk/
Lorraine Coghill https://www.durham.ac.uk/departments/academic/science/science-engagement/
NCCPE “what works: guide for art & science collaborations”
The Creative Watts scheme at Heriot Watts University https://www.hw.ac.uk/uk/research/engage/creative-watts.htm
Symposium Partners
