Preparing the summer 2024 edition of Big Bang magazine, it was easy to find many practical examples of how art is used to communicate science. This edition is full of very colorful examples in a variety of shapes and by different professions. But what can we learn from some of the science behind this channel of communication?
Emotion
Scientific studies suggest that arts can often attract people to science as it evokes emotions, in contrast to other forms of communication that rely on making people remember information and understand it [1]. Because of this, the connection between arts and science may have a positive effect on the willingness of people to act on and engage in the science that is communicated [2,3].
From a scientist’s perspective, most projects that use arts for science communication aim to increase public understanding or awareness about scientific concepts or environmental concerns. Amy Lesen and her academic colleagues1 describe the trend like this: “A growing literature suggests that the arts are particularly well suited to climate science communication because they can foster understanding of the science and outcomes of climate change, and because they can elicit visceral, emotional responses and engage the imagination in ways that prompt action or behavior change”.
Who and where?
Arts and science collaborations can be shaped in different ways: artists might take inspiration from science but not work directly with scientists, there might be scientists making art without involvement of artists, but there can also be integral partnerships between artists and scientists, and those who produce both science and art. This magazine features a variety of examples.
Most science-arts projects are based at universities, NGOs and museums. They are also most often initiated by institutions or organizations, rather than individual artists or independent teams of artists and scientists [1].
Public engagement
Research shows that arts-based science communication as part of an interactive exhibit, show, or performance can be very effective [4,5]. Participatory, community-based approaches, where members of the audience become collaborators or makers of art, are also more effective than continuing to use methodologies where knowledge is passed on by experts to a public that is assumed not to understand. Again, Amy Lesen and her colleagues [1] describe it well: “Participatory approaches adhere to a simple principle: having knowledge about a concept is not the same as being engaged with that topic in a constructive or useful way.”
New perspectives
Using arts as a means to start dialogue about science may offer new perspectives to society, artists and scientists alike. While science communication used to be considered as a one-way approach, often described as the deficit model,6 the connection between science and art offers possibilities to engage in a two-way approach, not only between the researcher and the artist, but also between the researcher and society. Researchers also have to find new ways to “make visible what cannot be captured in explicit words” while they try to engage their audience [7]. To quote Jonsson and Grafström: “when the artist’s skill is shared with the researcher, the researcher is confronted with other questions and perspectives, helping the researcher to “see” tacit knowledge that they may otherwise take for granted”.
Challenges in arts-science collaborationsinterdisciplinary collaborations between artists and scientists often come with challenges: expectations may diverge because of variety in training background, and there may be challenges because of differences in methods, values, vocabulary, funding, and income. For a successful collaboration it is recommended to, early on in the joint venture, create a shared vocabulary, and jointly reflect on goals, motivations, and desired outcomes. Maintaining an open dialogue to share information, ideas and reflections is important, as well as regular evaluations of the performance of the collaborators as well as audience perceptions [1].
Practical tips
Much of the scientific literature on this topic describes case studies or reflections of scientists on their own experience of communicating science through arts. More studies in which science communication scholars are involved in the study design, focusing on the collaborations between scientists, artists and their connections with society, as well as better reported evaluations of science-arts initiatives, should result in more evidence-based advice on different aspects of this method of communication.
For now, this story ends with an adaptation of 8 practical tips suggested by Houtman and Vijlbrief for those who want to use art to engage with an audience about science [8]
Tip 1. It doesn’t need to be beautiful
To start a dialogue, art can convey, confront, or create friction. Beauty tends to harmonize, while some discomfort among participants can lead to effective dialogue.
Tip 2. All forms of art are allowed
Personal passions make excellent vehicles for science communication.
Tip 3. Don’t be afraid to speculate beyond current scientific possibilities
Public dialogue can inform decision-making, but sometimes the dialogue takes place before the impact of a scientific development is known. In that case, reflection outside the scope of current possibilities can teach us about values and needs. And we can start acting on this.
Tip 4. Keep your target audience in mind
Personal relevance is important to engage with your audience. Use their perspective to create a scenario they can connect to and discuss.
Tip 5. Look beyond museums
By involving representatives from your target-audience who co-design from the very beginning, you may discover which language to use, what your audience finds appealing, and which channel is appropriate to make connections with your audience.
Tip 6. Testing is key
Showing an incomplete creation to representatives of your future audience may teach you about what works and what doesn’t. This may allow for adaptations that enhance the wished-for dialogue.
Tip 7. Kill your darlings
Be reflective about ideas that feel easy and comfortable to you, as they may not be the most effective or the best fit to the issue you want to address. Letting go of an idea can sometimes be more productive.
Tip 8. See tip 7
References
Lesen, A. E., Rogan, A., & Blum, M. J. (2016). Science communication through art: objectives, challenges, and outcomes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(9), 657-660.
Davies, S. R. (2019). Science communication as emotion work: Negotiating curiosity and wonder at a science festival. Science as Culture, 28(4), 538-561.
Friedman, A. J. (2013). Reflections on communicating science through art. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 3-9.
Wasserman, S., & Young, M. F. (2013). The Great Immensity: a theatrical approach to climate change. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 79-86.
Ntalla, I. (2014). Engaging audiences on ongoing social debates through interactive and immersive exhibits. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 6(2), 105.
Rodríguez Estrada, F. C., & Davis, L. S. (2015). Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication, 37(1), 140-148.
Jonsson, A., & Grafström, M. (2021). Rethinking science communication: reflections on what happens when science meets comic art. Journal of Science Communication, 20(2).
Houtman, D., & Vijlbrief, B. (2023). Eight tips for using art and design to start dialogue about science. Trends in Biotechnology.
Comments