Stephen Wilson (2002), 'Introduction, Methodology, Definitions, and Theoretical Overview', in _Information Arts: intersections of art, science and technology_, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 


Following on from the inadequacy of 'media arts' as a term, Stephen Wilson offers 'information arts' as a way of addressing the 'intersections of art, science and technology'. 
he asserts that research has become the centre of cultural innovation. But what of the differing agendas: how might the arts and science inform eachother?

Clearly scientific and technological research are cultural activities  imbued with creativity and critical comment like any other cultural activity such as art. Art, like research, holds the potential to ask questions about the implications of technological and scientific developments; and crucially ask different sorts of questions: for instance, what agendas motivate innovation and research? Indeed: How might art and research mutually inform one another? How does research extend arts practice?

Before the Renaissance, Science and Art were both seen as sources of creativity. Science was called natural philosophy. Artistic expression was embedded in ritual and everyday life. The Renaissance represented the dawn of specialisation. Increasingly intellectual work was divided into 'two cultures' (cf. C.P. Snow) demonstrating 'mutual incomprehension'. 

According to Wilson, 'several cultural forces combine to make a reexamination of the disconnection critical' (2002: 5). These are:
1. Influence on Life: Technological and scientific research spreading influence into Life.
2. Influence on Thought: Science and technology changing basic notions about the nature of the universe ad humanity. 
3. Influence of Critical Theory: Challenging some of the truth and objectivity claims of Science.
4. Artistic Activity: Increased attention to science and technology and the pervasive use of computer technologies.

Wilson's book asks:
Where do researchers and artists get their ideas?
How do they explore these ideas?
How are techno-scientific research and art research different?
What happens to the explorations over time?
Does mainstream assimilation somehow destroy the validity of the work as art?
(2002: 11)
Add: What? How? and for Whom?

First, some more basic definitions:

*What is Science?* 
Science is an attempt to understand how and why phenomena occur; a belief in empirical information; value placed on objectivity, sought through detailed specification of the operations that guide observation; codification into laws or principles (such as mathematics); continuous testing and refinement of hypotheses.
An underlying assumption is that the natural, observed world is real, and objectivity can be achieved through techniques such as the calibration of instruments, repeatability, and multi-observer verification. Some scientists stress induction built from observation (empiricists), others deduction drawn from theory (rationalists). Others again, see the possibility of objectivity as a delusion and focus attention on subjectivity, other social forces and metanarratives that shape the paradigms used in inquiry, as well as the interaction of the observer and observed phenomena. Radical constructivists doubt the ability to discover truths across history and cultural difference. A critique of science is commonplace in the humanities tradition influenced by the 'science as culture' discussions (Paul Feyerabend's _Against Method_, Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ and Donna Haraway's _Simians, Cyborgs and Women_, for instance). In Bruno Latour's _Science as Action_, persons, organisations, funders and materials are seen to combine to shape scientific theory (incidentally using ethnographic observation and recognising its problems of method).         

*What is Technology?*
Often wrongly conflated with science, technology refers to making things or refining processes rather than understanding principles; more 'knowing how' rather than 'knowing why' as Wilson puts it. Some contemporary definitions see technology as 'applied science' - the application of scientific principles to solving problems - but these attempts to shape the physical world clearly predate science; and, one might make machines with little interest in understanding why or how they worked. (There are easy parallels to be made with arts practice with the applied use of knowledge and an uncritical stance.) It is less 'pure' and more 'applied'; as a consequence in Western cultures, along with other making activities (cf. craft), it is often regarded as less worthy. In general, science and technology work together and mutually inform each other, although the intentions may be different. Developers of technology focus on more utilitarian aspects, whilst scientists search for more abstract endeavour and more open-ended inquiry. In this respect, Wilson asks: what is the relationship between thinking and making?

*What is Art?*
Benjamin quote here.

Similarities and Differences between Art and Science, according to Wilson (2002: 18):

Differences:
Art seeks aesthetic response; emotion and intuition; idiosyncratic; visual or sonic communication; evocative; values break with tradition.
Science seeks knowledge and understanding; reason; normative; narrative text communication; explanatory; values systematic building on tradition and adherence to standards.

Similarities:
Both value the careful observation of their environments to gather information through the senses; both value creativity; both propose to introduce change, innovation, or improvement of what exists; both use abstract models to understand the world; both inspire to create works that have universal relevance.

In Feyerabend's 'Theoreticians, Artists, and Artisans', he concludes that science is in many ways very similar to art, in that researchers build research structures and operations to represent their thoughts; trying to to shape a world from a largely unknown material.

Wilson's _Information Arts_ presents research-inspired art - drawing upon and using digital technologies, new biology (biotechnology, bio-medicine), materials science (physics, nanotechnology), and space exploration. It asks:
Can the Arts offer alternatives in setting research agendas, interpreting results, and communicating findings? (beyond the influence of the marketplace or military complex)
What can researchers contribute to art and what can artists contribute to research? 
What can high-tech companies gain from artists being involved? (choice of research agenda, definitions of research questions, and adoption of metaphors)  
(2002: 35-37)