Interactive Art and Science

Abstract

Tyler 2002; Wade 2003). Despite all these wise words, exhortations to scientists to involve themselves more with artistsöand vice versaöappear not to have been heeded. The languages and methods adopted by each group seem to be too disparate. Perhaps we should examine the methods each employ in a little more detail. Scientists now tend to work in groups rather than individually, with the reverse for artists. The indi-vidual thumbprint of the artists on the works they produce seems sacrosanct. There are examples of artists who work in pairs, but they are rare. Scientists collaborate in order to pool their respective skills. Such a procedure seems anathema to artists, as it was once to scientists, but times (and methods) have changed. The point has been made quantitatively by Cavonius (1999) with regard to visual science. He analysed the paper and poster presentations at meetings of the European Conference of Visual Perception (ECVP) from 1979 to 1997. In this period, the number of contributions from more than one author increased from about 46% to 77%. The trend is even starker for articles appearing in Perception. Examination of papers published in the years 1972, 1988, and 2004 reflects a shift from single to multiple authorship of articles (see table 1): the percentage of articles published by a single person has declined as the total number of articles has increased. Perception was initially a quarterly journal; by 1988 it was published bimonthly, and now it is monthly. The number of papers per year was 45, 57, and 97 for 1972, 1988, and 2004, respectively. The shift to multiple authorship is dramatic, and it could reflect, in part, the emphasis placed by research-granting bodies on collaboration.