Even as we become more scientific in our approach to life, our aesthetic sense remains intact. At least for the moment

Fotografiska Stockholm is not a traditional museum or gallery. It claims to offer its visitors the opportunity to discover photography, an eclectic program, fine cuisine and surprising new perspectives. Instead of traditional permanent exhibitions or works of art for sale, it aims to inspire, entertain and create impact.

Fotografiska’s center of attention these days is German-born visual artist Tobias Gremmler’s scenographic exhibition, aptly named The Changing Room. It’s meant to be a mind-blowing journey, imagining a world where clothes can actually grow on human skin. In an ever-changing room, Gremmler’s exhibition “opens up a space dedicated to the infinite possibilities of innovation”.

Here’s how this somewhat surreal experience unfolds. The relationship between the garment and the wearer changes during the exhibition, underlining our responsibility towards the future supply of sustainable materials. “This change in awareness is a necessary step to develop empathy towards the importance of a balanced coexistence between the demands of modern society and natural resources”, says Tobias Gremmler in his promotional material.

As well as being a mind-blowing experience, Gremmler’s exhibition tells us a bit more about how we perceive art these days. It is essential to understand this because the way we perceive art also influences, in a certain way, the way we produce and consume it. Icelandic-Danish artist Olafur Eliasson describes it even better. “Art doesn’t show people what to do, but engaging with a good piece of art can connect you to your senses, body, and mind,” he says. Eliasson reminds us of the transformative experience that art constantly seeks in more ways than one.

He then takes his argument to another level. According to him, “art can lessen the numbing effect created by the overabundance of information that we face today”. This is nothing but a common comment of our time.

The question then arises: if we accept that our environment – ​​which Eliasson describes as an “overabundance of information” – influences our view of art, does our perception of art evolve? permanently? In other words, has it been refined as we evolve as a human species? Or is it not different from other processes that are part of our evolution?

Technology and innovation

Rima Chahine, who describes herself as an intuitive abstract artist from a multicultural background, transports us to a few centuries ago, when things were naturally different. “In the 19th century, it was all about perfect technique and very established subjects,” she says. According to her, it was more a question of prestige because they drew and painted important figures. “In modern art and abstraction, the emphasis is on originality and innovation,” says Chahine, who grew up in Montreal and has Lebanese roots.

Interestingly, she doesn’t have a specific source of inspiration. Instead, the “disconnected world” is its inspiration. “I paint to connect to the world. That’s my goal…and to find happiness in the little things,” she says. By fixing the processes that produce his art, Chahine lays bare the realities of our life and our times.

Chahine also points to the growing therapeutic value of art given the rather bleak circumstances we live in these days, which she calls “one of the loneliest times.” “Today it’s more about exploring dreams, symbolism, social issues and rebellious ways of self-expression,” she says. “We feel more connected when artists express a taboo,” says Chahine. Her solo exhibition Emotions at Dubai’s Andakulova Gallery featured 20 original paintings.

Chahine’s premonition as an artist works best when she paints “what will happen in the future”. She painted Aftermath in December 2019, just before the Covid-19 pandemic surfaced. She also painted Multiverse in 2020, before the metaverse era and the non-fungible token (NFT) became the talk of the town. However, she disagrees that the scientific temperament of human beings reduces the influence of art. Instead, for her, it’s about art complementing science.

However, she is clear about the distinction between art and science and how it manifests itself. “Art gives you the sense of the creative mind to explore while algorithm science is about the process of getting from point A to point B,” she says, adding that art is about the end product. , comparing it to “not the making of the cake but the cake itself”. Chahine’s most telling comment concerns the relevance of art in life and his views on the direction our aesthetic sense is taking.

“Human suffering comes with technology and its supernatural rapid pace. It gets worse and also increases our anxiety, ”she laments. The result of all this is that we no longer live in the present. “We no longer live; we just change. Art is about appreciating the little things in life. Art helps us get back to what’s important. If we don’t appreciate the little things, we don’t appreciate the big things,” says Chahine.

No essential opposition

Tabish Khair, Indian novelist, poet and critic, currently professor at the University of Aarhus, in Denmark, does not believe in an essential opposition between the sciences and the arts. “These are both different and complementary ways of thinking about the world and about the world.” He then makes a telling point about the dichotomy, which operates on another level.

“The opposition is between art/science on the one hand and technology/profit on the other,” he says. According to Khair, technology is often identified with science, which implies that science and the arts are in opposition. He illustrates this argument with a simple and convincing example. “Technology is just an application of science: its relationship to pure science is the same as the relationship between painting a house and painting a work of art,” he says.

Khair laments that art seems to be diminished today, but attributes this to certain applications of technology, such as digitization, instead of making sweeping generalizations. Moreover, he asserts that the pure sciences are also suffering. “Universities, for example, are experiencing cuts in the pure sciences and the humanities. Only areas that can be turned into technological and economic profit are primarily funded,” he says. So, indeed, if we pay less attention to art and limit our quest to learn science in a certain way, we are bound to tip the scales at some point.

Each flow has its limits and feeds off each other, and one cannot be the mirror image of the other. In Khair’s words, we can better understand the world using the “goal of science”, but we cannot “create without creativity”. Art is necessary to science if you follow a school of thought, but it also states that creativity involves imagination and imagination is visualization. No wonder some of the most important scientific discoveries have also involved an art form.

A matter of interpretation

Yasmin Khan, a multidisciplinary curator and cultural consultant working at the intersections between art and science, says art is timeless in the sense that the artistic integrity of a great work will always shine through. She argues that often the material value of a work increases over time because we realize its quality is unmatched. However, does this also change our perception of it?

According to her, the conceptual ideas that initially inspired the creation of a work of art can be interpreted differently over time, as our perspectives change according to environmental and political conditions. “Inevitably, the vision and underlying messages will resonate differently in the future,” says Khan, whose latest exhibition Outwitting Cancer is on view at the Francis Crick Institute in London until July 2022. For her, the digital age offers new opportunities to develop innovative art. forms, but that doesn’t necessarily make the traditional analog modes of art redundant.

Khan cites the example of the hype surrounding art generated by artificial intelligence and incorporating augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR). According to her, synthetic experiments can be exciting.

However, the novelty fades once digital fatigue sets in, and the human need for organic respite and reflection will always transcend. “This is where multi-sensory art forms can be most cathartic,” she prescribes.

“Accessibility to good art has always been linked to our healing and well-being – therefore the social prescription of cultural visits for patients is a growing trend,” she says.

The purpose of art

Going through these arguments, it is obvious that art has a purpose. Some even call it a revolutionary tool that gives us food for thought. It’s definitely better than being bombarded with information and fear. For example, Rima Chahine’s pictorial experience was that of an “intimate enterprise”.

Nevertheless, she seems alarmed that we are losing compassion. “We’re separated from each other, and that’s why we’re so disconnected,” she says. So, we can look at it from an overly scientific point of view, but, according to Chahine’s description, “art is about connection, sensitivity and spiritual awakening”.

Art can be beautiful yet disruptive, haunting, and even hard to come across. That’s why Yasmin Khan believes the real litmus test of a great work of art is whether it makes you see the world differently and appreciate something new. She says artists shouldn’t be threatened by technology or compete with it. “I prefer ways to find synergies and best thrive when collaborating on multidisciplinary work that intersects across fields, pushes conventional boundaries, and has the potential to shift paradigms,” she says.

This logic applies whether we look at it as science students or as individuals overwhelmed by a rapidly changing technological environment.

However, if art is to serve a purpose, its instrumental application or intrinsic merit is sufficient. “The best work is done without serving a predetermined agenda or wielding soft power,” Khan says, delineating the artist’s process from simply becoming a servant of propaganda.

“It’s what separates authentic art from the realms of marketing and iconography. Art should not be didactic or created with the intention of selling an idea, promoting an ideology, or conditioning you to think in a particular way,” says Khan. According to her, an extraordinary work allows the viewer to interpret it as he sees fit and make it his own meaning. “It can be transformative.”