Lorenzo Biferale, Federica Rubino, María Ruigómez Eraso
In the cultural and technological realm(s), the intersection of art and science is increasingly becoming a recurring topic, often framing them as two different but complementary languages that can shed light on one another. However, their relationship is frequently one of subordination and dependency. The Art+Science dialogue is centered around recognising them as two different practices. One - Science - that concurs to increasing human knowledge, shifting the horizon of what is known forward. The other - Art - that acts upon the results of the former to bring out, when it is not merely a divulging use, more individual, tacit and ambiguous meanings.
The liberal arts, as understood today, are historically rooted in the Renaissance and developed through the nineteenth century as an integrated vision of knowledge, encompassing the beaux arts, belles lettres, history, philosophy, mathematics, natural sciences, and emerging social sciences. Initially, these disciplines were interconnected, offering a holistic understanding of human experience.
However, as methodologies advanced and new subjects emerged, academic fields became increasingly specialized, leading to a fragmentation of knowledge. This narrowing of focus, while contributing to intellectual progress, has also distanced disciplines from broader societal concerns, as well as from interdisciplinary dialogue.
Contemporary societal issues, including climate change, global poverty, and loss of natural resources, are increasingly understood as complex or “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973). These require reconsideration of (in)formal rules, dominant ways of thinking and doing, problem solving and resource management, as these are in many ways part of the problem (Verwoerd et al., 2021). In response, the twentieth century saw a growing emphasis on integrative disciplines aimed at reconnecting knowledge across fields and ensuring its practical application in enriching human life (Buchanan, 1992).
In this context, learning from the case of design as a recently formed discipline is particularly interesting. Neo-positivism, pragmatism, and phenomenology have significantly shaped design education and practice in the twentieth century. While design theory has often aligned with neo-positivism, design practice has embraced pragmatism and pluralism, with phenomenological perspectives present in both. This tension between theory and practice in design reflects a broader contrast between the neo-positivist philosophy of science and the diverse perspectives of practicing scientists and academics.
To work with this tension is not to reduce it, but to expand it, broadening the spectrum of the apparent contrast between theory and research practice by exploring the results of their cross-fertilisation; understood not as a way of bridging the gap between theory and practice but as self-standing process of research derived from the combination of diverse knowledges and practices. Or, as Gonzalez-Piñero et al. (2021, pg. 36) put it, cross-fertilization refers to the interdisciplinary combinations of different knowledge and technologies [that we intend as practices] that occurs through collaboration between multiple disciplines, institutions, and organisations, fostering knowledge exchange, innovation, and technology convergence.
In other words, what if we try to refocus the debate from what can art tell us about scientific knowledge? to where can cross-fertilised practices lead us? It has often been thought that to bring the creative and the scientific together it is necessary to express the indeterminate aspects of nature and human existence with determinate means of expression. In the words of the novelist Italo Calvino the need of “expressing the indefinite with the definite and the inexact with the utmost precision”, led him to adopt a structured method of research in his practice to reduce the complexity of the relation between the definiteness of one specific argument and the in-definiteness of all potential variables and alternatives.
«It is a devouring, destructive obsession, which is enough to block me. To fight it, I try to limit the field of what I have to say, then to divide it into even more limited fields, then to divide them again, and so on. Then another vertigo grips me, that of detail».
Like Italo Calvino, Piet Mondrian approaches his practice as an exercise in knowledge and investigation, proving that a clear and precise visual language does not preclude the expression of the mysterious as long as one possesses a broader vision of things and the ability to put that language in service of it. Mondrian’s perpendicular lines are not meant to create a rigid grid; rather, they should be understood not as representations of objects but as expressions of a dynamic flow, one that encompasses every possible object seen from every possible perspective. In his words:
«Everything is expressed through relations. Color, size, and position exist only through opposition to a different color, size, and position. This is why I call the relationship the fundamental element. (…) Each thing becomes knowable only through another, as every form of wisdom teaches us».
Not surprisingly, Piet Mondrian’s research process and methodology have influenced academic research, where his approach to constructing objects in art has been adapted into frameworks for structuring knowledge and interpreting relational dynamics (Pomiès & Tissier-Desbordes, 2016).
Without the presumption of defining what knowledge is, we recognise that in the context in which we operate, it takes shape along a spectrum with two extremes: explicit knowledge (academic, written, codified, and described through words and images) and tacit knowledge (artistic, transferred through experience, often relational and embedded in objects).
Going back to the design research example, knowledge in design resides in people (e.g. designers), the (research) process, and in the product itself (Petrelli, n.a.); the design artifact was soon acknowledged to embed knowledge. However, more than the artifact, it is the process, the method by which the research output is generated, that is involved into the production of knowledge.
With Radical Creativities, we aim at bringing forward the interaction between these two types of knowledge, embodied in the scientific/academic and the cultural/artistic, by stating the urgency to break this dichotomic approach.
Our domain of action is culture and creativity, whether by choice or vocation, and it is within the diverse range of people and projects that operate with/through/thanks to culture and creativity that we position ourselves. The driving force behind Radical Creativities stems from a series of questions. Questions to which we do not claim to have definitive answers, but which help define and guide the project’s actions. The first, and perhaps the most ambitious one:
What is Knowledge?
While we acknowledge the complexity of this question, we borrow a definition that resonates most with us:
"Work done with the intention to produce knowledge for use by others." (Stappers & Giaccardi, 2014)
From here, we move to our second question:
Who is the 'other'?
We believe the 'other' includes everyone who engages with culture and creativity with awareness and purpose of building and expanding knowledge, whether in academia, cultural practice, or artistic expression.
The first action we want to perform with Radical Creativities refers to the following question:
What would happen if we legitimised the cross-fertilisation of diverse practices of knowledge creation?
It’s from these premises, and with the aim of inquiring and experimenting around these questions, that Radical Creativities moves its actions. A new not-for-profit editorial project launched by the KEA - European Affairs team that aims at bridging the silos in which knowledge creation on cultural and creative practices is currently constrained. Academic research, cultural practice and art are not three separate worlds, but rather different ways to interpret, understand and assimilate the same reality.
“When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case [...] He does not separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision which he must later convert to action. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his inquiry.” (Schön, 1983)
In the project’s name, we use ‘Creativity’ in the plural, emphasising the need to legitimise a plurality of practices and histories, bringing them together and letting them mutually cross-fertilise each other, bringing together the “thinking” and the “doing” (Schön, 1983). We believe that in times of “wicked problems” this is necessary to reconnect the advancement of knowledge to broad societal concerns, without criticising the specialisation and fragmentation of knowledge but moving on another space, one of cross-fertilisation of practices.
Radical Creativies welcomes submissions that embrace the expressive use of different modes of expression, languages and media, with the aim of disrupting the dominant forms of knowledge production and dissemination. On Radical Creativities, you will find contributions of diverse nature, all centered on the affirmation of the cultural as necessary to achieve the just and equitable transformation of communities and all exploring who we are as communities across time and space, in permanent transition.
Radical Creativities seeks concrete proposals on how to generate radical and sustainable transformation, focusing on how artists, entrepreneurs, institutions and cultural workers can address global challenges and display leadership, contributing to the construction of altruist economies and social systems. We base our actions on the principle of culture as a transformative agent, thereby recognising art, cultural programming and research as powerful tools for societal transformation. We focus on cultural practices that lead or support societal transitions, that is to say, cultural and creative actions that are grounded in today’s challenges while championing sustainable human development.
Radical Creativities is structured in two complementary and cross-fertilised spaces:
RC PUBLICATIONS: The Radical Creativities Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that challenges traditional scientific publication models and knowledge systems. We accept all types of cultural expression (academic contributions, recordings, poems, films, art pieces, ...), in all languages and all mediums. Key to this process of exchange is our peer-review process: contributions are revised by other contributors, who are knowledgeable of the topic but not about the medium per se, to gather valuable cross-insights about the phenomenons at stake, studied through different epistemic and theoretical lenses. This, we believe, initiates a process of experimentation and de-confinement of knowledge production methods.
RC LAB: The Lab is our place for experimentation. This is not a curated space. Instead, we provide prompts to which you are invited to react. The prompts are selected by our editors, in collaboration with our partners. Together, we brainstorm the most pressing questions we want an answer to, and then we ask YOU – the community – to help us find an answer together
Bibliography:
Calvino, I. (2023). Il castello dei Destini Incrociati. Mondadori.
González-Piñero, M., Páez-Avilés, C., Juanola-Feliu, E., & Samitier, J. (2021). Cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in collaborative research projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(11), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-04-2020-0270
Stappers, P. and Giaccardi, E. (2014, January 1). Research through Design. Interaction Design Foundation - IxDF
Verwoerd, L., Klaassen, P., & Regeer, B. J. (2021). How to normalize reflexive evaluation? Navigating between legitimacy and integrity. Evaluation, 27(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389020969721
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Schön, D. A. (1985). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Pomiès, A., & Tissier-Desbordes, E. (2016). Constructing the object of research in the manner of Piet Mondrian. In Marketing Theory (Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 279–298). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593116635875
What is your take on interdisciplinary practices? Do they push humanity forward by fostering innovation, or do they risk diluting knowledge by blending distinct disciplines?