The Natural History Museum in London is making a great attempt at blending an artistic perspective with their main focus of activity – science education. A previously mounted conceptual art exhibit was reviewed in this blog.  The museum has now opened a new gallery entitled Images of Nature focused on showcasing the over half-a-million drawings, illustrations and images of plants and animals in the museum’s collection.

The introductory text states that nature has inspired, and continues to inspire, many artists and describes the long tradition of natural history illustration. The point is made that “for a picture to be useful to a scientist, it must be true to life.” The best natural history illustrators are described as having superb attention to detail and an ability to reproduce what they see – ie. to reproduce faithfully the physical characteristics of the animal, plant or “specimen” they are illustrating.

It is this very attention to reproduction of the physical object that ultimately distinguishes art from science.

The museum’s gallery contains some recent work by Guyanan artist Aubrey Williams. The artist is quoted as saying: “I hope these bird paintings can be viewed as an artist’s visual rendition of how he feels about birds and not as an ornithological treatment as one would have with a field guide.” And here lies the fundamental difference between art and science. Science is concerned with a description of how things are in a physical and material sense. Art, on the other hand, is largely concerned with what we make of things in an emotional, cultural or social sense.  Images that stop at being true to a physical reality are artistic illustration. Art goes much further.

In a recent column with the above title in Britain’s newspaper ‘The Guardian’, environmental writer Bibi van der Zee gives her views on whether the art works that surrounded the Copenhagen Climate Change conference would do any good at all.  Written before the summit finished in spectacular failure, here, in brief, were her conclusions:

• the art was generally good and much of it was very moving
• she could not believe that any of it would do any good and would make a blind bit of difference to the outcome in Copenhagen

I believe that both her conclusions are right.  But her whole article somewhat misses the point.

Producing artwork surrounding a summit like Copenhagen hoping that it will make a difference to the final negotiations is silly.  But to conclude therefore that art focused on environmental issues cannot have an impact is even sillier.

Let us start with Copenhagen. Over the past 20 years, we have had plenty of science, plenty of data, plenty of reasoned arguments, plenty of learned reports, plenty of demonstrations, plenty of NGOs making their points and telling the world about climate change, plenty of carbon heavy miles spent in endless multilateral negotiations – and it all ended in spectacular failure in Copenhagen. While it is easy to point the finger at politicians, the reality is that we have all failed.

On the other hand, there has been precious little art devoted to these issues over the past 20 years. Art is a powerful element that shapes the cultural environment in which decisions are made.  The art itself does not necessarily influence those decisions directly but it does shape the social substrate that drives the direction of those decisions.  Copenhagen did not fail because of lack of science.  Copenhagen failed because, as a society, we are culturally unprepared to take the decisions that need to be taken. Going forward, art and its popular application can make a significant difference in re-shaping that culture so that, next time round, we might stand a chance.

Ms van der Zee should realize that what we need is more artistic involvement not less.  The science/data/learned report route has, on its own, led us to nothing short of a spectacular failure.

Oh, and if anyone wants an alternative view of why the summit failed, read this article and its rebuttal.

In ‘From Art to Politics’, Murray Edelman argues: “Together art, the mind and the situations in which they are applied construct and transform beliefs about the social world.  …  But for the most part they do so in a masked fashion, leaving the impression that these beliefs are based upon observation.”

Contrary to the didactic nature of scientific or ‘factual’ communication, the most effective art is that which is ambiguous, allowing the viewer his own interpretation.  It is this ‘free-learning’ combination of the artwork and its open interpretation that makes art such a persuasive and culturally powerful force for change.

Effective art does not attempt to provide answers.  Rather its role is to raise questions, launching a journey of the mind that finds its own answers.

Many questions swirl around the issue of how humans can live successfully without destroying the world around them.  Many artists are producing work that provokes debate and discussion by challenging conventional thinking in a way that engages audiences.  Art that goes beyond the narrow confines of conservation and environmentalism to the broader debate around sustainability.

“It is widely acknowledged that the shaping and reshaping of the social world is accomplished in large part by cultural representations – those depictions, illustrations, likenesses, icons, pictures and portraits that are produced by a culture.” (Linda Kalof: Looking at Animals in Human History)