Skip to main content



‘what they were doing wrong and how they should do it better’

In a recent article for Frieze, Tom Jeffreys points out a common contention within art/science collaborations:
‘Artists must be perpetually vigilant to avoid simply representing or illustrating scientific research or having their work instrumentalized in the name of public engagement.’ 
Having been disappointed with many ‘art and science’ exhibitions where the former is stripped back to an illustration of the latter, I recognise where Jeffreys is coming from, even if the idea of exercising ‘perpetual vigilance’ over my work sounds a little apocalyptic—as if, unless I am constantly on my toes I will find I have accidentally produced a series of petri dish embroideries meant to convey salmonella colony growth to schoolchildren (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing). 

The article goes on to quote artist Ionat Zurr, on what the artist should be doing with science in place of illustrating it:
‘the role of the artist is to be somewhat critical, to ask: "How do those things happen…

Latest posts

Lab 1: encounters

on wandering & getting lost