Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Actually, itís an outgrowth of a discussion thatís been proceeding at varying degrees of intensity for quite some time now.
And I no longer question the fact that art and technology are coming closer and closer together.
This disputation I consider over and done with.
Juxtaposed to this is the rapprochement of art and science, which is actually more often described as a break-inóinto artistic methods, into artís repertoire of tools.
In this context, artistic research has been the subject of an intensive discussion in German-speaking Europe.
But thereís also been something thatís proceeded almost parallel to it, something quite conspicuous:
mixture and mutual assimilation thatís been gradually increasing over recent decades, science insinuating itself into society and society insinuating itself into science.
This reciprocal process of exerting influenceóbefore the scientific results are even in, thereís already a public opinion about them.
This is a relatively recent phenomenon; it certainly wasnít the case in the ë50s.
There were scientists and there were politicians, and they said weíre building atomic power plants, and we built them.
This also has to do with the changed relationship of trustóthe trust that we place in our (especially intellectual) elites, in our political leaders and in science.
This has started to break down to a considerable extent.
All of a sudden, for example, in genetic engineeringóbefore the scientific findings are even released, thereís a public discussion about them.
About designer babies, for instance.
And there are enormous reservations in society about genetic engineering.
Now, I definitely donít want to get judgmental here about whether thatís justified or not;
I just want to establish the simple fact that this discourse is by no means being moderated by science, which this new phenomenon has taken by surprise.
Science is also confronted by the problem.
Can science or genetic engineering in this form continue to be advanced at the same speed at which this has been done up to now?
Public funding simply isnít available anymore because genetic engineering is said to be evil.
Accordingly, you canít afford to do science in this area anymore, as compared to other, less high-profile fields such as nanotechnology.
Scientists have begun to understand how to use this lever and how to communicate the work theyíre doing.
Science coram publico, as it were.
This is a completely new issue, one that didnít exist previously.
There are a variety of strategies that can be used to deal with this intermingling of society and science.
From the scientific side, as well as on the part of society.
A few Next Idea projects are excellent examples in this thematic area.
What weíre doing is, weíre trying to address these issues within the context of Ars Electronica themesóart, technology (and, more specifically, technological sciences) and societyó
and to do a bit of probing into the risks and potential rewards of this intermingling.