Art and Design Meets Science: A Reflective Conversation on Science Communication

Prof. Tom Duscher, Prof. Stefan Sachs & Prof. Manfred Schulz

Where did your desire to engage with science come from?

SACHS:  Curiosity played an important role for me. I had always been interested in the natural sciences, but had no idea how things actually work in a research community, except the thought that it would probably be very different from the art world.

DUSCHER: I had already found it motivating to work with different disciplines such as spatial strategies and film, and to look beyond my own discipline. And I was interested in finding a relevant and important theme such as marine research.

SACHS: I would not have come on board if the content hadn’t been so interesting.

SCHULZ: For our group, the “Future Ocean” project made it onto the agenda easily. The theme of the sea is exciting, charming, erotic .. . I’m looking for the right words … The theme of oceans is very complete and inspiring on many different levels, not just that of the natural sciences.

SACHS: And of course it plays a special role here in Kiel, the city by the sea. When we joined the prospective cluster in 2006, I’d been in this city for just a year. I didn’t really know it properly yet.

SCHULZ: One could see that the scientific organization of the prospective cluster included expertise, infrastructure, traditions and a history of marine science in Kiel. In our eyes it was the right theme, in the right place, at the right time.

DUSCHER: And there was great interest in us from the scientists. They invited us in with open arms, and the collaboration with an art institution was new and challenging for them, especially the first moments spent getting to know each other.

What expectations did you have for the collaboration with the Excellence Cluster?

SACHS: When we started to deal with the scientists, the Cluster did not exist. There were no models for such a collaboration. Against this background we had the idea for the first exhibition in Halle 400, a large exhibition hall in Kiel.

SCHULZ: The initial phase involved just a few people. This small circle decided to try and create some publicity by doing an exhibition on the Day of German Unity. That was shortly before the decision about which excellence cluster was to be recognized, and we wanted to make an impression. Our idea was to install an “Underwater World” in Halle 400, to show that there was collaboration between diverse members who intended to be recognized as an excellence cluster.

Image 2- Scene of the first exhibition of the Cluster of Excellence The Future Ocean

We sought out simple, meaningful aspects of the science with broadly understandable content, and formulated possible questions. For example, the scientists gave us insights into international maritime law. From there we formulated the question “Who does the sea belong to?” From that, other scientists formulated similar simple questions such as “Will the Gulf Stream continue to flow?” or “Can algae heal people?” and then tried to answer them using appropriate text and visual material.

How did you and the scientists communicate day to day?

SACHS: When the scientists first explained the content to us, we didn’t understand anything. And they didn’t understand that we hadn’t understood anything. Knowing where the other stood was very difficult at the beginning.

DUSCHER: It’s also about a common attitude. The interest and the passion that one finds in the scientists, which really goes deep, has an important parallel in us creative types.

SCHULZ: With scientists there is a “right and wrong” logic which controls decision-making. We found repeatedly that the scientists presented interesting topics to us, we developed ideas from them, and then the scientists said: “That result is not yet final” or “We don’t yet have enough measurements to be able to fully affirm that”. We had to make it clear that the exhibition may also ask questions – of the sea, of people and of science.

DUSCHER: Real collaboration and mutual benefit began when we realized that we work very differently with images. Scientists create technical images to assemble data. From these images, we’ve made emotive presentations that the scientists could relate to, so they saw where our expertise lay and how we approached the issues.

Image 3: Ocean Explorer, a 6m long interactive multitouch table.

SCHULZ: In the area of design, we have a clearly formulated series of tasks ranging from the identification of the problem to well-argued, conclusive solutions in an individually crafted piece of work. But other qualities can play a role even though they escape clear logic. At the beginning the scientists asked how we can be sure that of these three possible poster designs, the one in the middle is the best. They were not clear how one could get to a result with something that in their view couldn’t be evaluated. Here mutual understanding developed over the years.

The whole thing resolved itself in wondrous ways in the exhibition in Halle 400 – a highly immersive space. In the preliminary stages, there was a lot of skepticism. Our ideas for the exhibition were expressed by means of plans and descriptions, which made them difficult to comprehend. Then when the exhibition was prepared and had opened, the majority were suddenly able to understand what we had been doing and how for the past few months.

-> Watch the video documentation:

SACHS: It became clear that each of us had a unique approach to the theme. Whilst trawling through video material at GEOMAR, I discovered recordings which immediately fascinated me. They were of slow journeys across the sea floor, many taken by GEOMAR’S own manned submersible JAGO. They showed barren ground, sand, gravel, volcanic rocks, but mainly vastness and emptiness. Now and again a small fish, but mainly nothing. I positioned three big flat-screens alongside each other to form a triptych. Different sea floors came to the observer from all three screens, the locations were blended, there was no sound. It was quite a suggestive video installation. Nothing was explained – it was rather the posing of a question.

How have your experiences with scientists been different from the different perspectives of art and design?

DUSCHER: It became clear that the rational approach of the scientists was more like a design attitude. For example, they needed a visualization of climate evolution over the past 10,000 years. As a designer, you start by thinking about concrete problems of presentation so there’s possibly a closer relationship between design and the natural sciences. If one approaches art and asks for a concrete solution for this or that … it’s perhaps not so easy to establish.

Is the difference between the natural sciences and art that art can be open in the form of its results?

SACHS: For me, a certain sensuality, and the provocation of uncertainty, are important. When art enables the recipients’ view of things to be just ever so slightly changed, that’s a victory.

DUSCHER: One can call the process of getting to a conclusion research, exploration or experimentation. For me, it’s inspiring to experiment with new technologies to find out what they do or don’t make possible. The new plays a central role for me, maybe because not everything that is new is also good or better. It is about shaping the future, assessing new technologies and asking what one can achieve with them. I find it fascinating to do this within the realm of ocean research, because I can question whether it helps and supports the scientists.

What does the tension between art, design and science look like, and how have artists and scientists influenced each other through the collaboration?

SCHULZ: I don’t believe that our work has influenced the scientists’ research work.

DUSCHER: I find that it has changed their attitude in some ways. For example, they have conceived and realized the latest exhibitions by themselves. We have changed the way they see themselves, how communication or presentation is thought about, and as a result maybe the way they act.

SCHULZ: The scientists’ research work was not influenced, but the way they interact with the public has changed. In the past few years, the communication culture within scientific research has changed, and we’ve made a contribution. But it has also developed its own momentum.

DUSCHER: In the application for the second phase of the excellence cluster funding, Muthesius contributed to the definition of a focus for the research, and introduced the themes of culture, society and responsibility. Our position was that sustainability can be achieved if strong self-awareness and willingness to change behavior emerge in society. And that did influence the direction of the research and has made communication and visualization themselves the object of research. The societal aspect is now taken much more seriously than before.

Was there actual collaborative work, or did the scientists, artists and designers just happen to work on the same content?

DUSCHER: Think of the collaboration on the Next Generation Scientific Poster. We approached the scientists with a suggestion for a new technological form of visualization, formulated our own creative questions, and after that asked the scientists about appropriate research content. This led to a very close collaboration in which we learned a lot about specific visualization problems in science.

Image 4- Explaining a scientific topic using the interactive scientific poster