experiment synonym art

Synonyms of experimental

• as in developmental
• as in empirical
• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Thesaurus Definition of experimental

Synonyms & Similar Words

• developmental
• investigative
• preliminary
• exploratory
• speculative
• hypothetical
• theoretical
• preparatory
• provisional
• conjectural

Antonyms & Near Antonyms

• established
• observational
• existential
• experiential
• indisputable
• demonstrable
• tried - and - true
• nonempirical
• unempirical
• unsubstantiated
• metaphysical
• transcendentalist

Examples of experimental in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'experimental.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Articles Related to experimental

This is the Difference Between a...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

Thesaurus Entries Near experimental

experimental

experimentation

Cite this Entry

“Experimental.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/experimental. Accessed 6 Sep. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on experimental

Nglish: Translation of experimental for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of experimental for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), games & quizzes.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Synonyms and antonyms of experiment in English

Word of the Day

procrastination

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

the act of delaying something that must be done, often because it is unpleasant or boring

Like a bull in a china shop: talking about people who are clumsy

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Help Center

Synonyms for Artistic experimentation

56 other terms for artistic experimentation - words and phrases with similar meaning.

Alternatively

1. experiment

Rhymes with experiment.

• Pronounce Experiment

How do you spell experiment? Is it expirement ?

• Experiment in a sentence
• Quotes about Experiment

2. experiment

3. experiment, 4. experiment, 5. experiment.

noun. ['ɪkˈspɛrəmənt'] the act of conducting a controlled test or investigation.

• control condition
• experimental condition
• experimentation
• scientific research
• Michelson-Morley experiment
• control experiment
• research project
• powerlessness
• unrestraint
• indiscipline
• abandonment
• abortifacient
• abridgement
• accompaniment
• accomplishment
• accouterment
• accoutrement
• achievement
• acknowledgement

How do you pronounce experiment?

Pronounce experiment as ɪkˈspɛrəmənt.

US - How to pronounce experiment in American English

UK - How to pronounce experiment in British English

A common misspelling of experiment is expirement

Sentences with experiment

1. Verb, base form The best option is to experiment with different grips and find what you prefer. 2. Adjective An experiment report is a common requirement for many science courses. 3. Noun, singular or mass It is a general statement that you are using your experiment to prove or disprove.

Quotes about experiment

1. I am my own experiment . I am my own work of art. - Madonna Ciccone 2. Very much, string theory is simply a work in progress. What we are inching toward every day are predictions that within the realm of current technology we hope to test. It's not like we're working on a theory that is permanently beyond experiment . That would be philosophy. - Brian Greene 3. All life is an experiment . The more experiments you make the better. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

verb. ['ɪkˈspɛrəmənt'] to conduct a test or investigation.

• investigate
• improvement

noun. ['ɪkˈspɛrəmənt'] the testing of an idea.

• pilot experiment
• unsoundness

noun. ['ɪkˈspɛrəmənt'] a venture at something new or different.

• unskillfulness

verb. ['ɪkˈspɛrəmənt'] try something new, as in order to gain experience.

download a flashcard

New Perspectives on the Anglophone World

Home Issues 6 What Do We Mean by Experimental Art?

What Do We Mean by Experimental Art?

This essay explores and evaluates a number of possible ways in which the phrase “experimental art” might be understood, considering several particular examples. “Experimental” may be understood purely on the basis of the scientific model, though this is not what we usually mean by the term. The experimental quality of art is more likely to be understood as a matter of degree of innovation, though this approach is rendered problematic when put in a historical context. We are more liable to call something an experiment when it does not lay the foundations for a new movement, but is something of a dead-end. It may be thought that the size of the audience is important, experimental art often being of minority interest, but some counter-examples are cited. The next question the essay considers is: “Is experimental art always a matter of technique — of a trying-out of new forms? Or is it possible to be experimental in terms of content alone?” Experimental art as commonly understood often means not fully achieved art. The essay then sets the term “experimental” next to another term, “inventive”, drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida. Inventive art is very like experimental art, challenging the status quo, going beyond the “possible”, introducing that which is uncategorizable and unmarketable. The paradigmatic experimental work of art, perhaps, is one that is highly innovative in form, but doesn’t entirely succeed in what it attempts; it bears the marks of the artist’s trial-and-error procedures; it is appreciated by the few rather than the many; and it remains outside the mainstream of artistic production.

Cet article explore et évalue les différentes manières de comprendre l’expression “l’art expérimental”, en se basant sur des exemples précis. “Expérimental” peut être entendu comme étant entièrement basé sur un modèle scientifique, même si ce n’est pas ainsi qu’on l’entend habituellement. La qualité expérimentale de l’art est cependant beaucoup plus liée à un degré d’innovation qu’elle introduit, bien que cette approche puisse être problématique quand on la replace dans un contexte historique. Il est plus probable que nous désignions une œuvre comme “expérimentale” quand elle ne pose pas les fondations d’un nouveau mouvement, mais qu’elle représente plutôt une impasse. On peut penser que l’ampleur du public qui l’apprécie est importante, l’art expérimental n’étant souvent intéressant que pour une minorité de personnes, mais on peut trouver des contre-exemples. La question que se pose ensuite l’article est la suivante : « est-ce que l’art expérimental est toujours une question de technique, d’expérimentation autour de formes nouvelles ? Ou bien est-il possible d’être expérimental seulement au niveau du contenu ? » L’art expérimental tel qu’on le conçoit d’ordinaire est souvent un art qui n’est pas totalement achevé. L’article confronte le terme d’« expérimental » avec celui d’« inventif », en se basant sur l’œuvre de Jacques Derrida. L’art inventif est très semblable à l’art expérimental, il remet en question le status quo , va au-delà des possibles, introduit ce qui n’est pas catégorisable ni commercialisable. L’œuvre d’art expérimentale paradigmatique est peut-être celle qui est très innovante au niveau formel mais ne réussit pas tout à fait à atteindre le but recherché. Elle porte la marque de la procédure de tâtonnement de l’artiste, elle est appréciée par quelques-uns plutôt que par le plus grand nombre, et elle reste en dehors de la production artistique standard.

Index terms

Mots-clés : , keywords: .

1 What exactly do we mean when we call a work of art experimental? And how does experimental art relate to non-experimental — but still successful — art in the eyes of those who use these terms? To explore this question, I would like to approach it from six different directions; if we can gain a sense of how the term is generally used, we may be in a position to advance to a more theoretically based account.

2 (1) “Experimental” may be understood purely on the basis of the scientific model. That is to say, art may be used to test various hypotheses, or artists and scientists may work together to produce results that aim to illuminate the nature of reality or instruct the general public. One of many such examples is the “Synergy Project: Light and Life”, described on the project’s website as follows:

Tristan and artist Shawn Towne set out to develop a novel means of conveying human impacts on sea grass beds through art based on light and movement. Their inspiration is derived from underwater video taken off the coast of Cape Cod, focusing on fragile, ephemeral eelgrass beds. These are locations where man’s influence is driving rapid changes in the ecosystem, often for the worse.

Through their work together, they hope to communicate the degradation of these systems from coastal development, as well as provide a baseline view of particular ecological sites at a given point in time for potential scientific application. (Synergy Project)

3 However, this rather literal meaning is not what is usually meant by experimental art; the term may gain some authority from its overtones of hard science, but does not usually imply an actual engagement with science and scientists. The etymology of “experiment” takes us back to the Latin verb experiri , to test or try, and its associated noun experimentum , a trial, test, or proof; and the word in English of course predates the development of scientific method. (The earliest recorded examples of “experimental” mean “having experience of” or “based on experience” — and we may note that the French equivalent of “experiment” is expérience .) What does connect the modern scientific and artistic uses of the word is the sense of trial-and-error, of testing a hypothesis — but in the world of the arts, an experiment is not controlled in the same way as it is in scientific practice (a point I will come back to) nor is it a requirement that the experiment be repeatable by others.

4 (2) The experimental quality of art is more likely to be understood as a matter of degree of innovation . We do not use the label “experimental” for John Banville’s Book of Evidence (1989) or Colm Tóibín’s The Master (2004) or Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake (2003), though they are all outstanding examples of the novel form. We are more likely to apply the term to Eimear McBride’s A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing (2013) or Will Self’s Umbrella (2012) or Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves (2000). McBride’s and Self’s novels announce in their first paragraphs that they are probing the limits of what is readable:

For you. You’ll soon. You’ll give her name. In the stitches of her skin she’ll wear your say. Mammy me? Yes you. Bounce the bed, I’d say. I’d say that’s what you did. Then lay you down. They cut you round. Wait and hour and day. (McBride 2013:1)

I’m an ape man, I’m an ape-ape man . . . Along comes Zachary , along from the porter’s lodge, where there’s a trannie by the kettle and the window is cracked open so that Muswell Hill calypso warms the cold Friern Barnet morning, staying with him, wreathing his head with rapidly condensing pop breath . (Self 2012: 1)

5 Danielewski’s experimentation begins even earlier: the title page states:

HOUSE OF LEAVES  

by Zampanò  

with introduction and notes by Johnny Truant (Danielewski 2000)

6 We may then notice that the page facing the title page has the words “MARK Z. DANIELEWSKI’S” across from the title. And if we flip through the book, we encounter a host of different type faces, pages largely blank, print running sideways up the page, and so on. House of Leaves shows itself to be worthy of the adjective “experimental” even before we start reading the text. One problem with this approach is that it presents us with a spectrum, and a spectrum that has many works falling somewhere in the uncertain middle area. For instance, staying with novels, would Ali Smith’s How to Be Both (2014) be considered experimental? It appears at first to be relatively conventional, but when the reader discovers halfway through the novel that it is starting again in a different century (and especially if she learns that had she picked up a different copy of the same book she might have read the two halves in the other order) the term “experimental” might seem appropriate. Or take Eleanor Catton’s The Luminaries (2013). From one point of view it is a long, highly conventional narrative imitative of the three-decker Victorian novel; but when we take into account its form we may want to call it experimental: each of the many characters is associated with a zodiacal sign or heavenly body, each of the 12 parts opens with an astrological chart relevant to the date on which the events of that part occur, and the parts diminish in length in imitation of the waning moon.

7 This uncertainty about the middle ground perhaps does not matter; we can live with the idea of degrees of “experimentalness” and have no problem with the idea that one work is “highly experimental” while another is “somewhat experimental”. More problematic is the effect of history and hindsight on this approach. Let us take Beethoven’s “Eroica” symphony, for instance. In this work, first performed in 1805, Beethoven produced a highly radical piece of music which represented an immense challenge for its first listeners, who had heard nothing like it before. The composer, it must have seemed, was experimenting with the symphonic form. But we are unlikely to call it experimental today because of its place in the history of the symphony; Beethoven’s innovations soon became accepted resources for composers, and even longer, more discontinuous, more harmonically daring symphonies were to follow. Or take Picasso’s 1907 painting Les Demoiselles d’Avignon : this work broke all the rules of representational art, and yet its influence has been such that it now has a solid place within the history of art that renders the term “experimental” unlikely in current discussions. We tend not to think of T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land (1922) as experimental today, though Eliot certainly was experimenting with what could be done in poetry, nor of Le Corbusier’s starkly simple villas of the nineteen-teens, though they were aesthetically revolutionary buildings, in both cases because their innovations gave rise to entire movements in their respective art forms.

8 It seems, then, when we take historical processes into account, the term “experimental” does not simply mean “degree of innovation.” We need to complicate our approach to the idea of experimentation in art.

• 1 For a full discussion, see Attridge (1974). The movement had analogues in a number of other Europea (...)

9 (3) The examples I have mentioned suggest that we are more likely to call something an experiment when it does not lay the foundations for a new movement, as the Eroica symphony, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon , The Waste Land , and Le Corbusier’s villas did. We are more likely to use the term for a work of art whose innovations proved to be a dead-end, an artistic gamble that did not pay off. One body of poetry that still often gets called experimental is the series of attempts by a number of poets in England in the late sixteenth century to write vernacular verse in quantitative metres, imitative of Latin and Greek verse (as they understood it). Edmund Spenser, Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Campion and many others tried to determine which syllables of English words were “long” and which “short” and to construct lines of verse on this basis; however, the nature of English speech, dominated by stress, not quantity, was unsuited to this method, and the craze soon died out. 1 Readers voted with their eyes and ears, so to speak, and preferred the accentually-based verse of The Faerie Queene and Astrophel and Stella (not to mention the plays of the Elizabethan dramatists, who were wise enough not to meddle with the vernacular verse-forms they had inherited.) These attempts at quantitative English metre are often referred to simply as the “quantitative experiments”. Other examples might be William Blake’s experiments with colour printing, which did not stand the test of time, and the language invented by Ted Hughes and Peter Brook for their play Orghast , presented at Persepolis in 1971 but not used again. And no doubt there were innumerable experiments by artists of all kinds throughout history whose failure led to their being quietly set aside, and of which we are consequently unaware.

10 This seems a rather negative approach to experimentation in the arts, however; it more or less equates “experiment” with “failed experiment”. It ought to be possible to speak of successful experiments, even in the past. We need to complicate our picture further.

11 (4) Perhaps we should put the emphasis on the size of the audience . Is experimental art always art of minority interest? How does it relate to the notion of the avant-garde , which usually implies art that appeals to only a small number?

• 2 This is not to suggest that later artists have not been influenced by these experiments, but they c (...)

12 It is certainly true that most examples of what we are likely to call experimental art do not have wide appeal, for reasons that are obvious. Arnold Schoenberg’s second string quartet, written in 1908, in which the composer experimented with complete atonality for the first time, still does not draw large audiences. However, if what appears to be an experiment does in the course of time become popular, we may well cease to think of it as experimental — as with the examples by Beethoven, Picasso, Eliot and Le Corbusier mentioned earlier. But there are possible counter-examples. Late in his life, Matisse started creating works of art out of boldly coloured cut-out shapes in a manner that we might want to call experimental; Turner, also late in his career, experimented with swirls of colour to produce paintings that were abstract in all but name; Malevich conducted what are called “suprematist experiments” with blocks of colour or squares of black or white. Yet these three bodies of work were among the most popular exhibitions in London in the year 2014 — in fact, the Matisse cut-out show was Tate Modern’s most popular show since the gallery’s opening. Because these works did not become assimilated as central to major movements in art — what could follow Matisse’s snail (Figure 1), Malevich’s black square (Figure 2) or Turner’s seascapes (Figure 3)? — they have not suffered the same fate as the other examples; they still stand out as exceptional and experimental. 2

Figure 1. Henri Matisse, T he Snail (1952-3)

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/​arts-entertainment/​art/​reviews/​henri-matisse-the-cut-outs-art-review-9259383.html#gallery

Figure 2. Kasimir Malevich, Black Square (1915)

Source: http://www.tate.org.uk/​art/​research-publications/​the-sublime/​philip-shaw-kasimir-malevichs-black-square-r1141459

Figure 3. J. M. W. Turner, Seascape with Distant Coast (ca. 1840).

Source: http://www.tate.org.uk/​art/​artworks/​turner-seascape-with-distant-coast-n05516

13 Music and literature do not furnish examples quite so easily, though it is worth noting that McBride’s A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing , rejected by publishers over nine years of fruitless submissions, won the Goldsmiths’ Prize, the Bailey’s Prize, the Desmond Elliott Prize and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize, and is undoubtedly selling well as a result (if not always being read to the end). Some of the minimalist music of Arvo Pärt might be considered both experimental and popular, though to some ears it is too bland and unadventurous to merit the former label. Size of audience is not, it seems, a fool-proof guide to what we mean by “experimental”.

14 (5) The next question to be considered is: “Is experimental art always a matter of technique — of a trying-out of new forms? Or is it possible to be experimental in terms of content alone?” All the examples we have looked at so far involve formal innovation; they do not necessarily introduce material that has previously been kept out of the domain of art.

15 An artist who uses a relatively conventional form but depicts events or objects that have hitherto been excluded from art may well not be regarded as experimental. Zola represented aspects of reality that had not been the subject of fiction before him, but my sense is that we do not think of him as writing experimental novels, in spite of his own claim to be doing so (a claim based on approach (1) above, since he modelled his work on that of natural scientists). On the other hand, when there is a clear disjunction between new content and conventional form, we may reach for the idea of experimentalism to describe the work. When Mark Quinn creates a sculpture in Carrara marble representing the thalidomide victim Alison Lapper, naked and pregnant, and exhibits it on a plinth in Trafalgar Square, the contrast between the highly traditional polished marble and realistic carving and the unusual human body it represents is what makes the work powerful — and perhaps takes it into the realm of the experimental (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Marc Quinn, Alison Lapper Pregnant (2000)

Source: http://marcquinn.com/​artworks/​single/​alison-lapper-pregnant1

16 However, the self-assurance of Quinn’s statue makes it hard to think of it as an experiment; it reads as the work of someone who knew exactly where he was going when he made it, rather than somewhat trying out an idea without knowing where it will lead. This brings us to the final question.

17 (6) Does experimental art as commonly understood, then, mean not fully achieved art, where the reader, listener or viewer senses the riskiness of the project in its not quite complete success? In such cases, we might feel we are sharing with the artist the trial-and-error character of artistic creation, rather than receiving from his or her hand something that bears no traces of the chancy process whereby it come into being. If we return to the Matisse cut-out exhibition I mentioned earlier, we find Zoë Pilger writing in a review published in the Independent : “The early cut-outs were small, experimental ” (Pilger 2014, my emphasis).

Figure 5. Henri Matisse, The Fall of Icarus (1943)

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/​artanddesign/​2014/​mar/​29/​henri-matisse-cutouts-tate-modern-drawing-scissors

18 Presumably the later, larger, cut-outs, more suggestive of the artist’s confidence in what he is doing, do not register as experimental. Colin Wilson, reviewing the late Turner exhibition, makes the opposite point: “Nor are these dozens of paintings experiments but finished works by a master” (Wilson 2014, my emphasis). For Wilson, it is the impression the works give of being finished that prevents them from being called experiments. (Richard Dorment, though, notes that “Turner experimented with octagonal and round formats and explored ever wilder colour combinations” [Dorment 2014, my emphasis]; what motivates this comment, no doubt, is that octagonal and round formats never caught on, so they remain in the realm of the unsuccessful experiment, however finished they may seem.)

19 We can conclude from these various uses of the term “experiment” that we do not employ it in an entirely consistent manner. The paradigmatic experimental work of art, perhaps, is one that is highly innovative in form, but does not entirely succeed in what it attempts; it bears the marks of the artist’s trial-and-error procedures; it is appreciated by the few rather than the many; and it remains outside the mainstream of artistic production. But none of these criteria except the first is essential — and when we apply the term to contemporary artworks we can, as has often been noted, only do so in a provisional way: the future may turn current experiments into mainstream productions.

20 I want now to set the term “experimental” next to another term, “inventive”, and I will begin by quoting Jacques Derrida. Writing of the inventiveness of Francis Ponge’s little poem “Fable”, he says that writing such as this

3 Translation modified. The original French reads: “Cette écriture est passible de l’autre, ouverte à (...) is liable to the other, open to the other and worked by it; it is writing working at not letting itself be enclosed or dominated by that economy of the same in its totality, which guarantees both the irrefutable power and the closure of the classical concept of invention. […] Passing beyond the possible, it is without status, without law, without a horizon of reappropriation, programmation, institutional legitimation; it passes beyond the order of the demand, of the market for art or science; it asks for no patent and will never have one. (Derrida 2007: 46) 3

21 This account of invention makes it sound very much like experimentation in art, challenging the status quo, going beyond the “possible”, introducing that which is uncategorizable and unmarketable. But for Derrida, all art “worthy of the name” operates like this.

• 4 I have developed the notion of invention in The Singularity of Literature (Attridge 2004) and The W (...)

22 I find this a useful way to think about art’s relation to the norms and habits that exist at the time and place of both its production and its reception. 4 Invention, says Derrida, is always “invention of the other” (“ invention de l’autre ”), a phrase with a double genitive: the invention invents the other, but the other also invents. It is an act but also an event. In this act-event of invention, a way of doing art that is unthinkable within current norms is brought into being — an alterity that resists closure, troubles the institution, and demands new forms of attention and interpretation (and sets the critics searching for new ways of addressing — and inevitably circumscribing — the new work).

23 My question is this: Is it possible to distinguish between the inventiveness of all art (at least all art of any significance) and what is called experimental art? As we have seen, the term “experimental” suggests trial-and-error, the testing of new forms, the taking of risks; but isn’t this true of all inventive art? Wasn’t Sophocles being experimental in introducing a third actor onto the Greek stage? Wasn’t Chaucer being experimental in creating a verse-form we now call iambic pentameter? Wasn’t Defoe being experimental in writing a fictional narrative in the guise of an autobiography? These and many other innovations in the histories of all the arts were radical, untried, uncertain. I have already mentioned inventive works by Beethoven, Picasso, Eliot and Le Corbusier that, in the creative process, were experiments, and there are countless more examples. Only in hindsight do the new ventures by such artists appear obvious — a third actor hardly seems a surprising innovation, iambic pentameter feels like a natural verse-form in English, the novel in the guise of a fictional autobiography is hardly unusual — because they introduced new possibilities into the art form for others to take advantage of. Kant called this “exemplary originality” (Kant 1974: 150-1): not just that which has not been done before, which might be meretricious or trivial art, but that which, once done, creates fresh opportunities for new forms of originality. It is very easy to be original in the narrow sense: I could without difficulty produce a jumble of words, or sequence of sounds, or a pile of objects never before heard or seen. But these works of so-called “art” would not be inventive: they would not engage with the cultural, intellectual, political and ethical context within which they have been created, and they would not open up new possibilities for other artists. They would not, to use Derrida’s words, be “open to the other”.

24 The other, however, is not simply that which does not exist, or does not exist yet; it is other to “the economy of the same” — in other words, it is what is excluded by the current cultural configuration; it is what cannot be seen, or heard, or done, thanks to the power of the doxa . This is why the work of the true artist is difficult and risky: the task is to exploit the fissures and tensions within the economy of the same (which is never wholly coherent or totalised) to allow the other to be apprehended, and what that other is is not something that can be known in advance. And this is why it opens a path for future work.

25 It seems to me, therefore, that all art worthy of the name is experimental: all strong artists are working at the limits of what can be achieved, and all such artists are taking risks, engaging in a process of trial-and-error, going down a road without knowing where it leads. As J. M. Coetzee puts it with reference to verbal invention:

It is naïve to think that writing is a simple two-stage process: first you decide what you want to say, then you say it. On the contrary, as all of us know, you write because you do not know what you want to say. Writing reveals to you what you wanted to say in the first place. […] What it reveals (or asserts) may be quite different from what you thought (or half-thought) you wanted to say in the first place. (Coetzee 1992: 18)

26 The writer of poetry, drama or fictional prose experiments with language, with what it can be made to say but also with what it can make the writer say. This is what Derrida suggests by the ambiguity of “ invention de l’autre ”, and what I mean by the coinage “act-event”. (Coetzee captures this doubleness in his apothegm, which occurs just after the passage I have quoted, “writing writes us”.) The painter experiments with the possibilities of light, colour, texture and representation; the composer experiments with the possibilities of sound. And so on. The greatest artists, perhaps, are those who are most sensitive to the cultural context in which they are working (which is, of course, inseparable from the social, political and economic environment), most open to the ideas, forms, sounds, shapes and feelings it occludes and the possibilities that exist for accessing them, most daring in letting those possibilities become real in their work, and most skilled at knowing when what they are making has reached its full realization.

27 I believe it is right to go on calling some instances of this artistic making “experimentation”, especially when it involves radically new techniques that do not become part of the central narrative of the art-form in question because they are taken up and developed by other artists. But what is also important is that we try to identify and encourage those contemporary experiments that are not merely offering something different but are engaging with the unapprehended potential that the culture has excluded — the kind of experiment that Derrida would call an invention. In the future, hindsight may strip the label “experimental” from these works precisely because they have identified so powerfully what is needed to bring to visibility, audibility or readability what the culture has excluded; they may come to seem an essential part of the story of art. We should not forget, however, that they started as experiments: ventures into the unknown, trials without guarantee of success, failures leading to new attempts, and a trust in the work that is finally delivered over to public judgement.

Bibliography

Primary sources.

Atwood, Margaret. Oryx and Crake. London: Bloomsbury, 2003.

Banville, John. Book of Evidence. London: Secker and Warburg, 1989.

Catton, Eleanor. The Luminaries . London: Granta, 2013.

Danielewski, Mark Z. House of Leaves . London: Random House, 2000.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment . London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1974.

McBride, Eimear. A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing . Norwich: Galley Beggar Press, 2013.

Self, Will. Umbrella . London: Bloomsbury, 2012.

Smith, Ali. How to Be Both . London: Hamish Hamilton, 2014.

Tóibín, Colm. The Master . London/New York: Picador, 2004.

Secondary sources

Attridge, Derek. Well-weighed Syllables: Elizabethan Verse in Classical Metres . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1974.

Attridge, Derek. The Singularity of Literature . Abingdon: Routledge, 2004.

Attridge, Derek. The Work of Literature . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015.

Coetzee, J. M. Doubling the Point . David Attwell, ed. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992.

Derrida, Jacques. “Psyché: Invention de l’autre.” In Psyché: Inventions de l’autre . Paris: Galilée, 1987.

Derrida, Jacques . “Psyche: Invention of the Other.” In Psyche: Inventions of the Other . Peggy Kamuf and Elizabeth Rottenberg, eds. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2007.

Dorment, Richard. “Late Turner: Painting Set Free, review: ‘Don’t let’s get too sentimental about Turner’.” The Telegraph. 8 September 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/11081456/Late-Turner-Painting-Set-Free-review-Dont-lets-get-too-sentimental-about-Turner.html

Pilger, Zoe. “Henri Matisse: The Cut-Outs, Tate Modern, art review.” The Independent. 14 April 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/reviews/henri-matisse-the-cutouts-tate-modern-art-review-9259383.html

Synergy Project. http://science360.gov/obj/video/698ddccc-3558-40bd-a52e-bad1e90bf019/synergy-project-light-life

1 For a full discussion, see Attridge (1974). The movement had analogues in a number of other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

2 This is not to suggest that later artists have not been influenced by these experiments, but they cannot be said to have initiated artistic movements when displayed. Later artists — the abstract expressionists of the 1940s and 1950s in the case of late Turner and the minimalists of the 1960s in the case of Malevich — may be seen to have built on them, but this does not lessen their experimental status in their own time.

3 Translation modified. The original French reads: “Cette écriture est passible de l’autre, ouverte à l’autre et par lui, par elle travaillé, travaillant à ne pas se laisser enfermer ou dominer par cette économie du même en sa totalité, celle qui assure à la fois la puissance irréfutable et la fermeture du concept classique d’invention. […] Passant au-delà du possible, elle est sans statut, sans loi, sans horizon de réappropriation, de programmation, de légitimation institutionnelle, elle passe l’ordre de la commande, du marché de l’art ou de la science, elle ne demande aucun brevet et n’en aura jamais.” (Derrida 1987: 61)

4 I have developed the notion of invention in The Singularity of Literature (Attridge 2004) and The Work of Literature (Attridge 2015).

List of illustrations

Electronic reference

Derek Attridge , “What Do We Mean by Experimental Art?” ,  Angles [Online], 6 | 2018, Online since 01 April 2018 , connection on 06 September 2024 . URL : http://journals.openedition.org/angles/962; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/angles.962

About the author

Derek attridge.

Derek Attridge is the author of, among other books, Peculiar Language: Literature as Difference from the Renaissance to James Joyce (Cornell, 1988), Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction (Cambridge, 1995), The Singularity of Literature (Routledge, 2004; reissued as Routledge Classic, 2017), Moving Words: Forms of English Poetry (Oxford, 2013), and The Work of Literature (Oxford, 2015). He is the editor of Jacques Derrida’s Acts of Literature (Routledge, 1992) and collections of essays on literary theory, James Joyce, and South African literature. Forthcoming is The Experience of Poetry: From Homer’s Listeners to Shakespeare’s Readers . Having taught at Oxford, Southampton, Strathclyde and Rutgers Universities, he is now Emeritus Professor at the University of York, and a Fellow of the British Academy. Contact: derek.attridge[at]york.ac.uk

The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0 . All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Full text issues

• 17 | 2024 Re-Viewing and Re-Imagining Scottish Waters in Word and Image
• 16 | 2023 Cities in Scotland: Cultural Heritage and National Identity
• 15 | 2022 Cities in the British Isles in the 19th-21st centuries
• 14 | 2022 Angles on Naya/New Pakistan
• 13 | 2021 The Torn Object
• 12 | 2021 COVID-19 and the Plague Year
• 11 | 2020 Are You Game?
• 10 | 2020 Creating the Enemy
• 9 | 2019 Reinventing the Sea
• 8 | 2019 Neoliberalism in the Anglophone World
• 7 | 2018 Digital Subjectivities
• 6 | 2018 Experimental Art
• 5 | 2017 The Cultures and Politics of Leisure
• 4 | 2017 Unstable States, Mutable Conditions
• 3 | 2016 Angles and limes
• 2 | 2016 New Approaches to the Body
• 1 | 2015 Brevity is the soul of wit

The Journal

• Editorial Policy
• Editorial Team
• Submission Guidelines
• Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Call for papers

• Call for papers – open

Information

• Website credits
• Publishing policies

Newsletters

• OpenEdition Newsletter

In collaboration with

Electronic ISSN 2274-2042

Read detailed presentation  

Site map  – Contact us  – Website credits  – Syndication

Privacy Policy  – About Cookies  – Report a problem

OpenEdition member  – Published with Lodel  – Administration only

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search

Journal of the New Media Caucus | ISSN: 1942-017X

On the role of experimentation in art (and science), françois-joseph lapointe.

Full Professor, Département de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal

[keywords: experimental art, experimental science, research, creation, bioart]

Art and science – autopsy of a tumultuous relationship.

So many researchers, philosophers, and epistemologists have tried to circumscribe the field of art and that of science, but none was able to fully reconcile both fields of research. For sure, this exercise was destined to fail in the first place. Art is not science; science is not art. They live alongside one another, with some overlapping areas, and numerous friction zones. One of the first objectives of science is to describe nature to eventually be able to explain how it operates. Art has for its main purpose – historically at least – to represent nature and to make us see the world as it is. For some, science is “an attempt to understand natural phenomena using the scientific method, which involves observation, the formulation of hypotheses, experiments to test them, and the drawing of conclusions that confirm or modify them.” [1] It proceeds from a methodology whereby structures and functions of nature are revealed by reasoning. Scientific rationality thus implies impartiality and objectivity. Art does not satisfy the same criteria; it is rather subjective and intuitive. For Frank Malina, art is a fiction, science is a fact. [2] In other words, “the symbols of art are unique, specific and irreproducible, while the symbols of science are unspecific, reproducible and amenable to generalization.” [3] In this regard, the integration of science and art has many obstacles, whether methodological, philosophical, or symbolical.

One of the main differences between art and science is about the role of the individual artist vs. the scientific community. Science demands to separate the subject from the object, what art does not. Indeed, detachment of the researcher is not a requisite of art. The work of art is never disconnected from the personality of the artist. In this respect, “arts place a great value on individual idiosyncrasy, whereas science is a collective effort in which individual differences are eliminated by application of the scientific process.” [4] The methodology of science is focused on the discovery of laws. The methodology of art is focused on the discovery of the self. On the one hand, individuals must disappear; on the other, individuals must transcend to leave a legacy. In the words of Asger Jorn: “What is the longest distance between two points? What is the maximum deviation in a movement? That is the concern of art.” [5] Finding the shortest path between the same two points. That is the principle of science.

Art, science and research

One should not confuse art with the artistic approach. In a similar fashion, one should separate science from scientific research. For the sociologist Bruno Latour, “science is certainty; research is uncertainty. Science is supposed to be cold, straight, and detached; research is warm, involving, and risky. Science puts an end to the vagaries of human disputes; research creates controversies.” [6] In the general sense, scientific research starts from a question set as a hypothesis to be confirmed or falsified. What about art? What about research in art? The aesthetic vocabulary provides the following definition for research: “work of the researcher, where one seeks to establish new knowledge, or obtain new results.” [7] Of course, this general definition is useless to differentiate artistic research from scientific research – both are seeking the same objectives. However, it is possible to distinguish two types of research in art. The first involves research in aesthetics; it is akin to philosophical or scientific research, and it focuses on all the objects studied by aesthetics. The second one is more personal; it concerns the actual research made by the artist to try new genres or processes. This type it is often less systematic, but more empirical than the first type of research.

It is precisely that second type of research that characterizes the artistic process, that by which it differs from scientific research. This definition, however, separates the moment of research from the moment of creation. It also separates the “artist-researchers” from the “artist-creators.” On one side, the Picassos of this world: “I do not seek, I find,” and, on the other side, the likes of Jean-Pierre Raynaud: “I define myself as a researcher in art. I do not deny the word artist, but I prefer the word scientist.” [8] So, if art is a research where there is nothing to find but the research in itself, the results of this research are no longer important. Unlike science, maybe we should in the case of art, reverse the process; that is, to start with a response and not a question.

If there is another glaring difference between science and art, it lies in the evaluation of research results. The criteria for one do not directly apply to the other. How, for example, can we assess artistic research? Who will judge the success or failure of a project? Who can say if the results are right or wrong? For a scientist, merit is measured by recognition, priority, and citations. [9] None of this applies to art. Roger Guillemin, a Nobel laureate in medicine who is also an artist, clearly states such fundamental differences:

For the scientist, creation can proceed only through the recognition of the existence of laws, constraints, one might say, from which one cannot escape. There can be no creativity in science without laws, whether they are already established ones, or ones to be established. This also forces us to recognize that scientific knowledge must be universal. For the artist, creativity knows neither rules, still less laws. Thus the creativity of the artist, is entirely within his imagination and his mastery of the manual, digital or other practical means of choosing to get where he wants to go. [10]

Practically, research evaluation in science must verify the universality of results based on a generally accepted paradigm; until the laws change and a new research paradigm replaces the old paradigm. [11] Therefore, the role of the researcher in science is to discover the truths of nature waiting to be discovered. The researcher in art, however, produces innovative and unique results that originate from his imagination. [12] No laws, no constraints, no intrinsic beliefs should constrain the research activities.

Art, science and technology

Science distinguishes between basic research and applied research. The first seeks to enrich the field of human knowledge, without any economical purposes; the second wants to apply scientific knowledge, especially for technological purposes. In industrial environments, the term research is used to describe innovation, whereas university scientists prefer to use development. In fact, history teaches us that great innovations are often the result of what the Nobel laureate and physicist Joseph Thomson calls “pure science”: “By research in pure science, I mean research conducted with no prospect of application in the industrial field, with the sole aim of expanding our knowledge of the laws of nature.” [13] However, the primary source of innovation is always fundamental (or basic) research, without which there would be no science to apply. For the French scientist Louis Pasteur, there is not a category of sciences that we can call applied sciences: “there is science and applications of science , bound together as the fruit is bound to the tree.” [14] In principle, any basic research has the potential to become applied.

The artist Frank Popper defines science in the broadest sense of the term as a synonym for knowledge. However, “technology is usually regarded as an application of science.” [15] In other words, science is described as a reservoir of information, but technology is just a means to make art projects. Although several artists may be indifferent to science, all are affected by technology, either directly or indirectly. For one, technology offers a diversity of artistic creation tools beyond what traditional media make possible. Such new media (and new technologies) illustrate the fundamental paradox that links art and technology – if the technique is by definition improvable, the work of art is not. Frank Popper considers any artistic approach relying on current technology as a thing of the past. For him “true science is always oriented towards the future and can not be technocratic.” [16] This distinction is reminiscent of the gap between applied research and basic research.

The making of artscience

Facing the paradigmatic dualism separating the field of art from the field of science, opposite theories clash. For some, art is a subdivision of science; for others, science is a subdivision of art. [17] Regardless of these seemingly different positions, this unifying vision erases artificial divisions between disciplines, as if the old distinction between art and science was no longer valid. David Edwards, professor of biomedical engineering at Harvard University, is the founder of Le Laboratoire in Paris, a place for collaboration between artists and scientists. For him, aesthetic inquiry is closely related to scientific inquiry:

We dream, and realize dreams, through a creative process that mixes two ways of thinking – aesthetic and analytical – which we often encourage and exploit in very different settings. Through aesthetic thinking, we embrace uncertainty and complexity, we induce, follow intuition, and draw inspiration from images and sounds. This process especially thrives in artistic environments, like theater companies or design studios. Through analytical thinking, we simplify a complex world, reduce its challenges to resolvable problems, and pursue the logic of equations. The aesthetic process is the substance of hypothesis generation, while the analytical process is the substance of hypothesis testing. Inevitably we fuse both when we create anything new. This fused process is what I call ‘art science.’ [18]

According to the model proposed by Edwards, the collective modus operandi of artscience is based on the same process, with artists and scientists representing the “twin engines of creativity” working alongside towards the same objectives. [19] Assuming that it actually is eligible to participate in the research process similarly for both artists and scientists, one question remains – how? For Stephen Wilson, artists whose work lies at the confluence of art and science/technology can advantageously influence research, for example by presenting new research topics, by inventing new technologies, by undertaking new experiments or by collecting new knowledge. For David Edwards, it is more important to enhance the process of experimentation, not just the result of this experiment.

Experimentation as a common language

For Claude Bernard, the father of experimental medicine, scientific experimentation is “the art of getting rigorous and well-defined experiments.” [20] For Allan Kaprow, the pioneer of performance art, experimentation is the “testing or trial of a principle.” [21] One could easily swap these two definitions as much as they both apply to science and art. Indeed, no one would reject that experimentation is the most effective model in science, especially in the field of so-called “experimental sciences.” What about experimental art? Do artistic experimentations have anything to do with scientific experimentations? Two different interpretations are offered to solve this conundrum: one which starts from the assumption that art indeed shares something with the experimental sciences, in terms of methods, procedures, or a commonality of objectives; the other which implies that one can only speak of experimental art as analogous to experimental science – that is to say that artistic experimentations are mimesis experimentations rather than true experimentations.

Experimental artists “usually say they are making art, whatever anyone thinks, whereas art artists know they are always making art, good or bad.” [22] Thus, the limits of experimental art are to be located elsewhere, in-between distinct areas of practice, or to quote Kaprow, in the blurring of art and life, or similarly the blurring of science and life. Confronted by the mysteries of the world we live in, experimental scientists are looking for answers. The task of experimental artists is to deliver questions rather than answers. Experimentation then becomes a process of questioning, testing of hypotheses, and questioning again, iteratively. The essence of this experimental approach holds much to the act of experimenting, and not just to the results and products of such experiments.

From the perspective of a general theory of experience, there is actually no difference between experimental approaches in art and science. The creative process, whatever it is, is part of the same phenomenological enquiry. The difficulty lies elsewhere, for to understand scientists, artists must learn to master the language of science, and vice versa. That pursuit of a common language poses several challenges and raises important questions. Namely, if science and art are really twin brothers (or sisters), what language can they use to get along? Is it required for one to learn the language of the other, or should we create a new one, i.e., the common language of experimentation? Despite obvious operational similarities, complete integration of experimental art and experimental science is not there yet. Even when artists and scientists are working together towards common goals, are they not always at the service of each other? In order to establish a better dialogue between researchers from different cultures, it is imperative for one to learn not only the language, but also to master the skills of the other.

On the one hand, artists have to study the scientific literature related to their areas of interest and acquire a high level of skills and knowledge that will enable them to become active practitioners in research. At least, they would need to consider the technical design of scientific experiments, which facilitate clarity of results. On the other hand, scientists would benefit from finding a way to open up to the contributions from other disciplines. They would need to find a way to temporarily suspend the rigidity of their monitoring protocol to accommodate the value of non-traditional research questions, practices, results and technologies from other fields. [23]

As soon as it will be possible for scientists to understand the work of experimental artists without any prejudice, artists will in turn be able to fully appreciate the core values of experimental science. No one knows whether science can progress without art, or art can progress without science. [24] One thing is for sure: art and science are interactively experimenting with various forms of technology and new media. Their progress does not depend on such experimentations, but it is precisely their experimental nature that leads to their mutual progress, and reconciliation.

Bioart as an experimental practice

For over 20 years, researchers and artists have been working together to generate a new genre of art whose material comes from living organisms. The advent of this so-called biotechnological art (or bioart ) is no stranger to the longstanding issues raised by the art/science dualism. [25] Namely, on what basis should we evaluate the success of such hybrid practices? The criteria of art or the criteria of science? Few theoreticians have looked into that debate. For sure, the boundary separating science from “bad science” is no different from that separating art from “bad art.” [26] That is, that an individual who painted a black square cannot proclaim to be an artist without understanding the historical and cultural context of art. For the same reasons, an individual who isolated DNA in his basement is not a scientist. As a researcher with a dual career in art and science, I have been confronted to this paradox in my own practice. Am I a biologist venturing in the field of art, or a bioartist trying to do science?

It is not easy for an artist to enter the compartmentalized world of science, and maybe more difficult for the scientist to be accepted by the art’s world. In this context, the bioartist occupies an enviable position on the checkerboard of artscience collaborations; he has the power to invite the public to question scientific research. Nevertheless, artists are usually put off by the idea of creating biotechnological art, and among those who dared to take the plunge, there are very few artists who willingly embrace the scientific method. [27] Bioartists who produce works that reflect advances in biotechnology are taking the risk of being accused of glorifying science. Consequently, it is often more paying to be provocative by attacking science and criticizing biotechnological research with subversive art performances and installations (e.g. Critical Art Ensemble). My own work goes against this negative bias. In my lab, I use the same experimental methods to study the population genetics of endangered species as I do to create self-portraits based on DNA sequences. An essential feature of my work is not only to produce art, but also to participate in the experimental process of science at the same time.

As a scientist, my research revolves around the concept(s) of self, and the revolution that human microbiome research has brought with respect to our definition of individuality. [28] As a bioartist, I address the same questions by transforming the bacterial communities living on my body, collecting the microbiome before and after each experiment, and generating a series of ‘microbiome selfies’ to illustrate the metamorphosis of my bacterial self. What if I become a vegetarian? What if I travel to a different country? What if I practice celibacy for a month? Will that affect my microbiome? Those are the kinds of artistic experimentations that can be directly translated into scientific data.

1000 Handshakes , Montréal, February 28, 2015. François-Joseph Lapointe, Photo © Cindy Bouchard. Used with permission.

As an example, I recently shook hands with 1000 persons to transform my microbiome as a way of transforming myself. This experimental performance was presented in Copenhagen, Montréal, and San Francisco to reveal how our contact with others is shaping the microbes between us. This scientific experiment was also designed to collect samples of my skin microbiome to analyze the bacterial contamination of my right hand in time and space. As such, the same performance was satisfying at once the criteria of science and the criteria of art; the same experiment produced results that could be exhibited in art galleries, and published in scientific journals. For some, art will never bring anything to science; the two fields are independent and incomparable. [29] For others like Wilson, art and science have the potential to enrich one another. [30] My postulate is that experimental art is a methodological invariant of experimental science. I also posit that experimentation is the missing link separating scientific research from artistic creation. That hypothesis remains to be further tested – experimentally!

• Stephen Wilson, Art + Science Now: How Scientific Research and Technological Innovations Are Becoming Key to 21st-Century Aesthetics (London: Thames & Hudson, 2010), 7.
• Frank J. Malina, “Some Reflections on the Differences Between Science and Art,” in DATA: Directions in Art Theory and Aesthetics , ed. Anthony Hill (London: Faber, 1968), 134¬¬–49.
• Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky, “Reflections on Art and Science,” Leonardo 5, no. 3 (1972): 249–253.
• Wilson, Art + Science Now , 16.
• Asger Jorn, Pour la Forme: Ébauche d’une Méthodologie des Arts (Paris: Internationale Situationniste, 1957), 81.
• Bruno Latour, “From the World of Science to the World of Research?,” Science 280, no. 5361 (1998): 208–209.
• Anne Souriau, “Recherche,” in Vocabulaire d’Esthétique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), 1206–1207.
• Nathalie Heinich, L’Art Contemporain Exposé aux Rejets: Études de Cas (Paris: Hachette, 1997), 106.
• Max Alfert, “Creativity and Merit in Art and Science,” Leonardo 19, no. 4 (1986): 323–28.
• Roger Guillemin, “Similarities and Contrasts in the Creative Processes of the Sciences and the Arts,” Leonardo 43, no. 3 (2010): 59–62.
• Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
• Leonard B. Meyer, “Concerning the Sciences, the Arts – and the Humanities,” Critical Inquiry 1, no. 1 (1974): 163–217.
• Robert J. Strutt, The Life of Sir J. J. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942), 198.
• Louis Pasteur, Quelques Réflexions sur la Science en France (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1871).
• Frank Popper, Art, Action and Participation (London: Vista, 1975), 226.
• Popper, Art, Action and Participation , 231.
• Sheldon Richmond, “The Interaction of Art and Science,” Leonardo 17, no. 2 (1984): 81–86.
• David Edwards, The Lab: Creativity and Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 4.
• Wilson, Art + Science Now , 6.
• Claude Bernard, Introduction à l’Étude de la Médecine Expérimentale (Paris: Flammarion, 1865), 13.
• Allan Kaprow, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 72.
• Kaprow, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life , 74.
• Stephen Wilson, “La Contribution Potentielle des Bioartistes à la Recherche,” in Art et biotechnologie , ed. Louise Poissant and Ernestine Daubner (Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2005), 350¬–51.
• Sheldon Richmond, “The Interaction of Art and Science,” 81–86.
• Charles P. Snow, The Two Cultures: And a Second Look (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963).
• Stuart Bunt, “The Role of the Scientist and Science in Bio-Art,” in Art in the Biotech Era , ed. Melentie Pandilovski (Adelaide: Experimental Art Foundation, 2008), 62–67.
• Marta de Menezes, “Art: In Vivo and in Vitro,” in Signs of Life: Bioart and Beyond (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), 215–29.
• Thiago Hutter, Carine Gimbert, Frédéric Bouchard, and François-Joseph Lapointe, “Being Human is a Gut Feeling,” Microbiome 3 (2015): 9.
• Lewis Wolpert, “Art vs Science: the Critical Difference – Unlike the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Response to a Painting Needs no Prior Training,” The Independent , 25 February 2000.
• Stephen Wilson, Art + Science Now , 7.

François-Joseph Lapointe is head of the Laboratory of Molecular Ecology and Evolution at the Université de Montréal and full professor in the Department of Biological Sciences. As part of his scientific research, he is interested in systematics, metagenomics and population genetics. Author of more than 100 publications in evolutionary biology, he also has developed numerous algorithms in biostatistics and bioinformatics. François-Joseph Lapointe completed in 2012 a PhD in the study and practice of arts at the University du Québec à Montréal. As part of his thesis entitled “Choreogenetics, or the art of making DNA dance,” he produced a genetic algorithm for dance composition and created a performance generated from the genetic sequences of 30 dancers. His most recent bioart project is to sequence his microbiome (and that of his wife) to generate metagenomic self-portraits (or microbiome selfies).

Experimental Art: How Taking Risks Impacts the Arts and Creators

Ready to explore the wild side of art? Embrace experimentation and see how taking risks impacts your art! Get inspired and become an innovator!

Are you looking to break out of the doldrums and try something new, even if it’s a little risky?

Take heart!

Experiments in creativity can be extremely rewarding - not just for yourself as an artist but also for the art world at large.

Experimental art--the process of pushing boundaries in the arts and taking risks with your own projects--is a fantastic way to express yourself and grow as an artist.

As artists, we often get comfortable with our styles and techniques, but taking creative risks and experimenting with different methods can result in game-changing discoveries, leading to incredible breakthroughs in our artistic pursuits.

Just like any creative endeavor, art requires constant experimentation, risk-taking and adventurousness.

If you want to breathe new life into your creative pursuits , it's time to embrace experimentation.

By understanding how experimental art works, what it has achieved thus far, and why it's so important to take chances with your creativity , creators of all sorts can unlock their full potential.

In this blog post, we’ll explore the impacts of stepping away from your comfort zone and pushing the limits of what we think is possible in our artwork.

Whether you are an amateur hobbyist or a professional artist, exploring new and unique ways of creating can spark creativity and inspiration that will invigorate your work in unique and unexpected ways.

Let's take a look at how taking risks helps artists explore different art mediums and techniques, why experimentation is important even (and often especially) when it doesn't lead to success right away, plus plenty of tips on getting started with experimenting in arts and crafts .

Get ready to take off on an experimental journey, where you will find new ideas and fresh ways to create unique works that are sure to spark inspiration among all kinds of artists!

Read on to see how embracing risk-taking can help open up a world of exciting opportunities for creators everywhere!

Artistic Experimentation

Art is a realm of boundless possibilities, where creativity knows no limits.

It is in this realm that experimentation takes center stage, pushing the boundaries and challenging the established norms.

In the context of art, experimentation refers to the act of exploring new approaches, techniques, and ideas that deviate from traditional or established methods.

It is an essential tool for artists seeking to break free from the confines of conformity and unlock their true creative potential .

Experimental art, my friends, is like a breath of fresh air in the stuffy room of traditional art forms.

It's an artistic movement that thrives on unfamiliarity, cherishing the element of surprise and pushing the limits of artistic expression.

It's about stepping outside the comfort zone and diving headfirst into the unknown, armed with nothing but curiosity and a thirst for innovation.

It's the rebellious cousin at the family gathering, the eccentric artist who dances to their own tune.

It's about pushing boundaries, embracing the unfamiliar, and daring to break free from the shackles of conventionalism.

Experimental art is essentially a style of art that aims to break free from tradition that explores new ideas, approaches, and techniques to create something unique, unconventional, and innovative.

The key to successful experimental art lies in taking risks and pushing boundaries to create something new and original.

But why is experimentation so crucial in the creative realm?

Well, my dear readers, it's because experimentation opens doors to uncharted territories; it allows artists to tap into their deepest wells of imagination, unearthing hidden treasures that would otherwise remain buried.

It challenges the status quo, forcing us to question our preconceived notions of what art should be.

Picture this: an artist standing before a blank canvas, armed with brushes, paints, and an unwavering desire to create something that has never been seen before.

They throw caution to the wind, surrendering themselves to the process of experimentation.

Colors blend in unexpected ways, brushstrokes dance across the canvas in a frenzy, and forms emerge from the chaos.

This is the magic of experimental art unfolding before your eyes.

Let's delve into the world of experimentation and discover its impact on the arts, creativity , and creators.

The Evolution of Experimentation

Experimentation in art has evolved over time, taking on various forms and embracing new technologies and mediums.

From the Renaissance period's scientific approach to artists like Leonardo da Vinci, who explored anatomy and perspective, to the avant-garde movements of the 20th century, such as Dadaism and Surrealism, that challenged societal norms, experimentation has always been a driving force in pushing artistic boundaries.

Throughout history, experimentation has played a pivotal role in shaping artistic movements and propelling artists to greatness.

Take, for instance, Jackson Pollock, the maestro of abstract expressionism.

With his iconic drip paintings, he revolutionized the art world, defying conventional techniques and embracing spontaneous gestures.

His experimentation paved the way for future generations of artists to let loose their creativity and follow their artistic instincts.

In modern society, experimentation has expanded beyond traditional mediums like painting and sculpture.

With the advent of digital art , installation art, performance art, and conceptual art, artists now have a vast playground to experiment with.

The rise of technology has opened up new avenues for exploration, allowing artists to blend traditional techniques with digital tools, creating immersive experiences that transcend the boundaries of the physical world.

Modern and contemporary art is a testament to the power of experimentation and risk-taking in art.

From interactive installations, to virtual reality works, and multimedia performances - these are all examples of how artists have transcended the limitations of traditional forms by embracing risk-taking.

In the contemporary art scene, experimental art has become a guiding force, igniting the flames of creativity and inspiring artists to think outside the box.

It encourages us to see the world through a different lens, to question the norms, and to embrace the freedom of self-expression .

It challenges us to confront our own biases and preconceptions, opening our minds to new possibilities.

Experimental art is about pushing boundaries in every artistic medium imaginable.

Think immersive installations that transport you to alternate realities, sculptures crafted from unconventional materials, and performances that challenge our very perception of time and space.

Experimental art takes us on a journey beyond the realm of the familiar and into uncharted territories of imagination .

It's an adventure that's full of surprises and delights, allowing us to explore new realms and rediscover our inherent creative powers.

Experimental art is a powerful tool for sparking creativity, inspiring innovators , and propelling the arts forward.

The Importance and Power of Experimentation

Experimentation is the lifeblood of artistic evolution.

It fuels innovation , challenges conventions, and propels the arts forward.

Without experimentation, art would remain stagnant, confined to predefined rules and limitations.

It is through experimentation that artists discover their true potential, find their voice, and leave an enduring impact on the world.

Experimentation holds immense significance in the arts, offering numerous perks for creators and the wider artistic community.

Firstly, experimentation allows artists to break through creative roadblocks by encouraging them to step outside their comfort zones.

By venturing into uncharted territory, artists can discover new techniques, materials, and forms of expression that they may never have encountered otherwise.

Moreover, experimentation challenges established norms and pushes the boundaries of what art is and can be; it disrupts the status quo, inviting viewers to question their preconceived notions and experience art in unconventional ways.

By embracing experimentation, artists can pave the way for new artistic movements, redefine artistic practices, and ignite critical conversations.

Experimental art is also an excellent platform for cultivating collaboration.

It encourages artists to embrace different perspectives, work together to find innovative solutions, and explore new ideas that may not have been possible alone.

At its core, experimentation in art fosters a culture of discovery, creativity, and innovation—one that is essential for the development of the arts and the growth of individual creators.

Benefits of Creative Experimentation

Experimentation is a powerful tool for unlocking creativity and uncovering hidden potential.

By taking risks and exploring unfamiliar methods, artists can discover new techniques, refine their skills, and create unique works of art that stand out from the crowd.

Whether practicing the visual arts, performing arts, or any other artistic endeavor, experimentation can help artists hone their craft and unlock the full range of their talents .

So, why should you take risks with your creative pursuits?

Here are some key benefits of embracing creative experimentation:

• Inspiration and Motivation:

Experimenting encourages artist to explore their creative limits and think outside the box.

It can be an excellent source of motivation when tackling large projects, allowing them to stay inspired and focused on the task at hand.

• Refinement of Skills:

By exploring different approaches and methods of creating, artists can hone their skills and refine their techniques.

With practice, they can become more comfortable working with unfamiliar materials and styles, gaining valuable knowledge in the process.

Experimentation also allows artists to explore different techniques, encouraging them to think critically and push their creative boundaries.

• Unlocking Potential:

Experimentation can help artists unlock hidden potential, prompting them to discover new forms of expression that may not have been possible before.

By taking risks, they can explore uncharted territories, uncover latent talents, and potentially create works of art that can truly stand out.

• Overcoming Creative Roadblocks:

Experimentation can be an effective tool for overcoming creative roadblocks, allowing artists to view their current situation from a new perspective and discover fresh ideas and solutions that they may not have thought of before.

While the outcomes of experimentation are never guaranteed, it can lead to incredible breakthroughs in creativity , providing a much-needed spark of inspiration for tackling tough projects.

• Professional Growth:

Experimenting can help artists stand out from their peers, broadening their network of contacts and paving the way for professional success.

It also serves as an excellent platform for learning new skills, building confidence , and showcasing their talents to the world.

In short, experimentation can open up a world of exciting opportunities for artists of all skill levels.

Real-Life Examples

Throughout history, countless artists have embraced experimentation, leaving an indelible mark on the art world.

Experimental artists come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, each with their own unique creative style .

To get a better sense of the power of experimentation in art, let's take a look at some real-life examples.

One notable example is Pablo Picasso, whose cubist paintings shattered traditional notions of representation.

His bold exploration of multiple viewpoints and fragmented forms revolutionized the art scene and inspired generations of artists to challenge conventions.

Another artist who exemplifies the power of experimentation is Yayoi Kusama.

Through her immersive installations and polka dot motifs, she transports viewers to otherworldly realms, blurring the boundaries between art and reality.

Her fearless experimentation with space and repetition has captivated audiences worldwide and propelled her to iconic status.

Hiroshi Fuji's recycled art sculptures offer yet another example of the potential impacts of experimentation.

His sculptures, crafted from discarded materials embody his environmentalist ethos while redefining what art can be.

By embracing unconventional materials and techniques, Fuji has transformed everyday objects into fascinating works of art, inspiring a wave of eco-friendly creatives in the process.

These examples illustrate the many ways in which experimentation can lead to groundbreaking works and transform the art scene as we know it.

They also demonstrate how taking risks can inspire others to embrace their creative potential, explore uncharted territories, and leave an unforgettable mark on the world.

The art world is filled with artists who have embraced experimentation, offering us a glimpse into the potential of taking risks in art.

Some showcase their artworks in an exhibition, others whisper it from the rooftops, while some simply let their work speak for itself.

Regardless of how they choose to showcase their artworks, these artists are a testament to the power of experimentation and risk-taking in art.

By understanding their stories and exploring their works, we can gain valuable insights that will help us expand our own creative horizons.

Artistic production is, after all, a process of experimentation and exploration - one that should be embraced and celebrated.

Only by taking risks can we hope to create something truly unique and memorable.

Incorporate Experimentation into Your Practice

For creators looking to incorporate experimentation into their own art making practice, there are several practical steps to consider.

Formal innovation isn't the only way to make art; it's also important to explore informal techniques and methods that challenge traditional practices.

Creating a conducive environment that fosters experimentation is crucial.

This includes setting aside dedicated time for exploration, creating a supportive network of fellow artists, and embracing a growth mindset that welcomes failure as an opportunity for growth.

Another way to experiment with your art is to change your approach to materials; taking risks is an essential aspect of experimentation.

Instead of sticking to the same canvas and paint, why not experiment with new materials and mediums?

Artists should be willing to step outside their comfort zones, try new techniques, and explore unfamiliar subject matters.

By stepping out of your comfort zone and using new materials, you can unlock new artistic possibilities and discover new avenues of creative expression.

Another way to experiment with your art is to change your perception and outlook.

Try looking at your subjects from a different angle, or trying out a different color scheme.

This can help you to explore new perspectives and unlock new artistic possibilities.

An idea that is often overlooked when it comes to experimenting with art is collaboration .

When like-minded artists come together, they can trade ideas and techniques, collaborate to create unique artwork together, and bring fresh perspectives to the table.

Collaboration plays a significant role in experimentation, as it allows artists to combine their unique perspectives and skills, pushing the boundaries even further.

Working with fellow artists can unlock powerful insights, spark innovative ideas, and provide valuable feedback on your works.

By collaborating with other creatives, you can break down creative roadblocks, explore new possibilities, and discover hidden potential in your work.

At the end of the day, experimentation is an essential tool for unlocking creativity , inspiring innovation, and propelling the arts forward.

Whether drawing, crafting a story with written word, or playing around with sound, experimentation is a powerful tool that can help you explore new artistic territories and uncover your true creative potential.

By embracing experimentation, artists can unlock a world of possibilities and create something truly remarkable.

A single risk could lead to an incredible breakthrough in your creative practice, so take a chance and see what happens.

Tips for Experimentation in Art

So, you're ready to take a leap of faith and dive into the world of artistic experimentation?

Awesome! Here are some useful tips to get your creative juices flowing.

• Start Small:

It's perfectly fine to start experimenting with smaller projects and gradually expand your creative endeavors.

Small experiments can help you to gain confidence in the process and build up your artistic skills before tackling more ambitious projects.

• Experiment with Different Techniques:

From traditional mediums to digital tools, there are many techniques that artists can experiment with.

Try mixing different mediums together, combine painting and photography, or experiment with materials and textures.

• Embrace Technology:

In the digital age, technology is an invaluable tool for experimentation.

Try exploring virtual reality, augmented reality, 3D printing , or any other tools that can expand your artistic capabilities.

• Take Risks:

Experimentation requires taking risks and pushing boundaries.

Don't be afraid to take risks and explore uncharted territories; you never know what new creations you may come up with!

• Find Inspiration Everywhere:

For inspiration , look beyond the art world for ideas.

Draw inspiration from everyday life, nature, music , literature—anything that can help to spark your imagination.

• Get Feedback:

Asking for feedback is essential to experimentation.

It can help you identify areas for improvement and uncover new creative possibilities.

Above all, remember to have fun!

Enjoy the process and don't take yourself too seriously; experimentation should be liberating and enjoyable.

So, dear creators, dare to dream, embrace the unknown, and let experimentation guide you on a journey of self-discovery and artistic growth.

As the great artist Henri Matisse once said, "Creativity takes courage."

Embrace that courage, ignite your imagination, and let experimentation be your guide to unlocking the true essence of your artistic brilliance.

Embracing Experimental Art

Experimentation is the key to unlocking your true creative potential as an artist.

From inspiring innovation to cultivating collaboration, experimentation can open up endless possibilities in the arts.

Don't be afraid to try new techniques, materials or collaborate with others to create something unique.

It might seem daunting at first, but risk-taking and adventurousness can result in game-changing discoveries.

By embracing experimentation, artists can discover new techniques, challenge themselves to think outside the box, and leave an unforgettable mark on the art world.

If you're looking to take the next step in your artistic pursuits, embrace experimentation and unleash the incredible creativity that resides within you.

Let's celebrate the bold, the audacious, and the wonderfully weird.

Let us immerse ourselves in the world of experimental art and allow our imaginations to run wild.

After all, it is through experimentation that we discover the true essence of creativity and unlock the boundless potential within ourselves!

Now, go forth and explore the unexplored, embrace the unconventional, and let your creativity soar to new heights.

The world is your canvas, so why not paint it with the vibrant colors of experimentation?

Interested in learning more about experimenting in art and the creative process ? Check out Helen Wells Artist: Sketchbooks + Art Ideas' video!

Want even more content about creativity and art?

Be sure to check out all of our creative chronicles !

Ready to experiment and tap into your creative side ?

Check out some of our other articles:

- Art for social change

- Art of mindfulness

- Reflection in art

- Break generational trauma

- Benefits of microlearning

- Digital nomadism

- Creative burnout

- Art of resilience

What Are the 7 Fundamentals of Art? Unlocking Secrets to Master!

What Are the Basics of Painting? Unlock Creativity and Painting Mastery

Is It Too Late to Learn to Paint? Unleash Your Creativity!

What Should I Start Painting as a Beginner? The Brushstrokes of Beginnings

Can I Learn to Paint by Myself? Acquire Painting Mastery All by Yourself!

What is the Most Common Painting Technique? Unlocking Painting Mastery

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

noun as in skill, creativity

Strongest matches

craft , profession

Strong matches

adroitness , aptitude , artistry , craftsmanship , dexterity , expertise , facility , imagination , ingenuity , inventiveness , knack , know-how , knowledge , mastery , method , trade , virtuosity

noun as in cunning

artfulness , artifice , astuteness , craftiness , deceit , duplicity , guile , slyness , trickery , wiliness

noun as in creation meant to communicate or appeal to senses or mind

design , painting

abstraction , carving , description , illustration , imitation , modeling , molding , portrayal , representation , shaping , simulation , symbolization

Weak matches

pictorialization , sculpting , sketching

Example Sentences

The smaller notebook options would make great travel art journals.

On some level, it’s an indication that “art is reflecting the times,” Renz says.

This week, Folger Theatre is premiering its virtual project “Encores,” an initiative to help provide more online content for the community while most arts institutions remain closed during the pandemic.

I learned to love the art of the search, the stories emerging from decomposing seats, revealing lost glasses and keys.

This social art is generally lost during months of drinking at home, unless you have company, but the pandemic had forbidden even that possibility, and weeknight drinking alone became an alarming habit.

The pulps brought new readers to serious fiction, making it less intimidating with alluring art and low prices.

Cold War fears could be manipulated through misleading art to attract readers to daunting material.

In “Steal This Episode,” the filmmaker denounces Homer Simpson as an “enemy of art.”

But those watching Selma were judging a work of cinematic art.

I spent time yesterday listening to the music you made, and looking at the art you created.

Woman is mistress of the art of completely embittering the life of the person on whom she depends.

Many of these have been seen in the Corcoran Art Gallery and in other public exhibitions.

Adequate conception of the extent, the variety, the excellence of the works of Art here heaped together is impossible.

So it commands the other sciences in all the wonderful and hidden things of nature and art (pp. 510-511).

While residing in Brussels these two artists began to collect works of art for what is now known as the Mesdag Museum.

Related Words

Words related to art are not direct synonyms, but are associated with the word art . Browse related words to learn more about word associations.

noun as in something successfully done, completed

• achievement
• bringing about
• carrying-out
• consummation
• fulfillment
• performance
• proficiency
• realization

noun as in chosen profession

• life's work
• nine-to-five
• walk of life

noun as in painting on coarse material

noun as in ability to perform

• effectiveness
• potentiality
• qualification
• qualifiedness
• wherewithal

noun as in expertise, skill

Viewing 5 / 43 related words

From Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

15 Awesome Science Art Projects for Kids

Sharing is caring!

STEM becomes STEAM as we integrate science with art in these awesome science art projects for kids! Get ready to get your mind blown!

One day way back in 1921, a young scientist was sitting on a ship sailing on the Mediterranean Sea. He looked out at the gorgeous blue water and began to wonder – why is the sea blue ?

Being a scientist, he began investigating this, extending his studies to the Bay of Bengal. Eventually, he discovered that the color of water is due to a ‘ selective absorption of longer wavelengths of light in the red and orange regions of the spectrum ‘ due to ‘ overtones of the infrared absorbing combined oxygen and hydrogen which stretches the modes of water molecules. ‘ 

And that my friends, is the story of Sir C.V. Raman , the famous Indian physicist!

Who was Sir C.V. Raman?

C.V. Raman was a child prodigy, completing high school at 13, college at 16, and his masters before 20! It’s not surprising that he won the Nobel Prize for Physics at the young age of 42, which was also the first Nobel Prize won by an Asian in any field of science!

This Nobel Prize was for his work in the field of ‘scattering of light’, named as the ‘ Raman Effect ‘ after the scientist. Since 1986, the day of this discovery, 28th February, has been celebrated as National Science Day all over India.

This special day is celebrated in schools, colleges and other academic institutions, and is considered to be an opportunity to encourage more scientific and technical research. We think this is also an amazing chance to marvel at the magic of science in general, and the best way to do this is with these 15 Awesome Science Art Projects for Kids!

1. Salt and Watercolor Art Project

2. Baking Soda Fizzy Art

Anyone who’s mixed baking soda and vinegar knows the immense potential of that reaction! Well, Everyday Chaos & Calm takes it to the next level and brings it into the realm of art by adding colors to it!

3. Lemon Watercolor Science Project

When life gives you lemons, you can make lemonade, or you can make art! Lemon juice contains citric acid, and when this hits watercolors, you get quite an interesting effect! Explore more about this reaction with this tutorial from Friends Art Lab.

4. Magic Paper Towel Science Art

Kids will love this science-art collaboration from Learning and Exploring through Play, which shows how colors run and explode onto paper towels. You’ll need a pipette for this, but if you can’t find one, you can also use a regular medicine dropper.

5. Bubble Hydrangea Art

Isn’t it amazing that you can create these gorgeous blooms from bubbles? Well, A Piece of Rainbow shows us just that, and creating the bubbles is the most fun part of the process!

6. DIY Kaleidoscope

I personally find the kaleidoscope one of the most beautiful examples of the intersections of science and art, making this a must-have in this list of science art projects. Buggy and Budddy gives us detailed instructions on how to make our own STEAM magic!

7.  Exploding Art

We’ve heard people talking about art being explosive when referring to artwork making strong political or social statements. However, Housing a Forest takes this literally, using acidity tablets and colors to create explosions!

8. Kid-made Marker Chromatography

If you’ve done chromatography science art projects in school, this project from A Dab of Glue Will Do will be familiar. Here, we use coffee filters and watch as they draw colors upwards, creating the most beautiful ombre effects!

9. Borax Crystal Stars

How pretty are these star crystals from Made to be a Momma? It’s hard to believe that you can make these easily at home, in any shape you like – but it really is possible tanks to the miracle of borax!

10. Homemade Conductive Paint

Can paint conduct electricity? Well, if it’s made from graphite, Teach Beside Me shows us that it certainly can! This is one of the most interesting science art projects we have today, and will impress kids of all ages!

11. Five-Minute Magnet Painting

Put the brushes and pens aside – today we paint with magnets! Left Brain Craft Brain gives us a really simple project to display how magnetism works, and is a great one for young kids.

12. Pendulum Art Activity

Pendulum science art projects are just awesome, and kids are sure to love them! There’s Just One Mommy shows us how to set this up, so make sure you have enough space and cleaning supplies on hand!

13. DIY Recycled Spinner Art

Spinners aren’t new to kids, but do you know that it’s the centrifugal force at play here? Babble Dabble Do helps us learn about this concept and makes it more interesting by adding some art in the mix!

14. Growing Rainbow Activity

Can you actually ‘grow’ a rainbow ? Well looks like you can, if you follow the instructions from The Best Ideas for Kids! Add this to your list of science art projects to try for St. Patrick’s Day !

15. Pressed Flowers Art

Science includes nature too, and nature is also artistic! Teach Beside Me shows us how to press beautiful flowers and leaves and how to create art with them. Use this opportunity to identify the different plant species you come across.

These science art projects should help bridge the gap between science and art, and show kids that they’re not mutually exclusive. Depending upon your child’s age and interests, choose a few of these and have fun trying them out – and don’t worry about the mess!

Related Articles

12 Disney Movie Themed Birthday Party Ideas

70+INDIA INDEPENDENCE DAY CRAFTS FOR KIDS TO MAKE IN 2023

15 Wonderful Winter STEM Projects for Kids

The Best 60 Chinese New Year Crafts and Activities for Kids [Updated for 2024]

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

It is nice to have art projects that also have a science and educational aspect. My kids would have fun doing these!

© 2023 ArtsyCraftsyMom · Member of Digital Avatar

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Screen Rant

Far side's gary larson warned aspiring cartoonists to avoid this 1 word.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

This Recurring Far Side Joke Is the Perfect Metaphor For Gary Larson's Humor

Far side creator gary larson explained the "huge difference" between cartoonists and writers, 12 far side comics comics from 1986 designed to make readers go “what-the”.

• Far Side creator Gary Larson advises cartoonists to watch their language carefully, as seemingly innocent words could have unintended meanings to some readers.
• Throughout the two-volume collection The Complete Far Side , Larson offers amusing and insightful essays on Larson's career, covering his successes, as well as some controversies he caused, accidentally or otherwise.
• Larson's anecdote about avoiding one specific word serves as a cautionary tale for aspiring writers, not just on what language to use and not use, but on navigating the distinction between an artist and their art.

According to Gary Larson, creator of The Far Side , aspiring cartoonists would do well to avoid using the word "boink" as a sound effect – and in general, should be careful with their word choice. As he amusingly illustrated with this one example, a seemingly innocuous word usage can result in a totally unintended response from readers.

Looking back on his career in retrospect for the two-volume collection The Complete Far Side , Larson penned several illuminating essays on his his creative process , as well as his career – making sure to cover the ups and downs of both.

The low moments often came in the form of accidental controversies; while The Far Side was often designed to shock the reader, occasionally Gary Larson achieved this effect without even trying. Ultimately, these were the times that proved to be among the most memorable for the artist.

Though it didn't appear with the frequency of the comic's infamous dogs, ducks, cats, & chickens, one repeat gag perfectly sums up The Far Side.

Gary Larson Advises Artists To Watch Their Language – Because The Audience Certainly Is

An unintentional faux pas.

That said, Larson's exhortation against the word " boink " does, in fact, contain a nugget of valuable advice that emerging artists can extrapolate from his experience.

The Complete Far Side is full of anecdotes that are both amusing and insightful; as the ancient poet Horace once said, poetry should " delight and instruct " its readers, and Gary Larson's retrospective essays on The Far Side are poetic in the sense they do exactly that. With his signature wit, Larson gives fans of his work a detailed behind-the-scenes account, offering a tour of his idiosyncratic mind, while reflecting on his greatest triumphs and most unforgettable fumbles alike. A particularly funny example of the latter comes as Larson expounds on the inevitability of offending some readers.

As Larson explained, while he knew – or at least suspected – that some Far Side cartoons could cause controversy , there were many more times when he offended readers entirely by accident. To emphasize his point, he gave an example of a time when he utilized what he thought was a classic sound effect, only to learn from readers that it was, in fact, charged with a much more risqué meaning . Larson stated:

Some land mines you unwittingly plant for yourself, without a clue in the world of what you're doing. For example, the word "boink."

From there, he elaborated further, humorously advising his cartoonist colleagues to avoid the word entirely.

As Gary Larson wrote:

Warning to other cartoonists: Do not use "boink" as a sound effect for something smacking into something else. "Boink," as it turns out, can be considered a verb. (Especially by the Brits, who first brought the boink issue to my attention.) And as a verb, "boink" is a bad thing to say. Unless, of course, you meant to say "boink." Then I suppose "boink" is a beautiful thing, if perhaps not the most romantic way of expressing the thing that "boink" means, as a verb, you see. Whatever. Let's drop it.

Of course, the author is being playful here; the heavy repetition of the word in question, leading up to " let's drop it ," is a clear signal that Larson is having fun here, and that he doesn't take his own advice too seriously. That said, Larson's exhortation against the word " boink " does, in fact, contain a nugget of valuable advice that emerging artists can extrapolate from his experience. Namely, to be prepared for the audience to pick up on things in their work that they might not even have known were there.

The Far Side Complete Collection

Fans of the far side can't pass up this master collection of Gary Larson's finest work. Originally published in hardcover in 2003, this paperback set comes complete with a newly designed slipcase that will look great on any shelf. The Complete Far Side contains every Far Side cartoon ever published, which amounts to over 4,000, plus more than 1,100 that have never before appeared in a book and even some made after Larson retired. 

Gary Larson And The Eternal "Separate The Art From The Artist Debate"

The far side rides the fence.

It is equally fulfilling, in distinct ways, to analyze each Far Side cartoon in isolation, or alternatively, to look at the entire corpus of Gary Larson's creative output.

20th and 21st century art has been dominated, at times, by the foundational question of whether art can be separated from its creator. Should a story's meaning be interpreted just on the basis of what it contains, or should the author's intentions be taken into account – this is the essential formulation of the question, which has been ruthlessly debated across every artistic medium for over a century. Notably, Gary Larson's The Far Side offers a great way to explore both sides of the argument.

By design, Larson intended for each Far Side cartoon to work in isolation; readers did not even need to know the name of the artist – aside from his scribbled signature in one corner of the frame – in order to enjoy (or thoroughly dislike) his work. This was actually how Larson preferred it; one gets the sense that, were he have been able to submit his work anonymously, he would have, at least so long as he was still being paid.

On the other hand, The Far Side was a product of Gary Larson's incredibly idiosyncratic creative mind . It is hard to argue that Far Side cartoons are not more enjoyable – or at least, more understandable – the more a reader develops an understanding of Larson as an artist and an individual. In this sense, the artist in his work are rich conduits for the perennial "art vs. artist" debate. It is equally fulfilling, in distinct ways, to analyze each Far Side cartoon in isolation, or alternatively to look at the entire corpus of Gary Larson's creative output.

According to Far Side creator Gary Larson, while there is certainly overlap between cartoonists & prose writers, there is one significant distinction.

Gary Larson And The Perils Of Artistic Misinterpretation

"boink" as a cautionary tale.

Larson's inclusion of this story in The Complete Far Side suggests that he recognized navigating the world as an artist includes being comfortable with potential misinterpretation.

All of that is to say, how a reader chooses to approach The Far Side plays an important role in shaping their reaction to it. Gary Larson's " boink " anecdote is an effective, if silly, example of that. Readers familiar with the Far Side cartoons, and with Larson as a creator, will know that he rarely indulged in "bawdy" or "salacious" humor; as obsessed with death as the comic was , it seldom joked about sex. Larson's use of " boink ," then, could be surmised to be an unintended use of a word with a meaning he wasn't aware of.

Someone looking at The Far Side comic containing the " boink " sound effect in isolation and potentially read more into it than there actually was to be deciphered; only by engaging with the artist's explanation of his own work would someone know that it was completely incidental. As much as he may have been half-joking when he suggested fellow cartoonists avoid the word all-together, Larson's inclusion of this story in The Complete Far Side suggests that he recognized navigating the world as an artist includes being comfortable with potential misinterpretation.

Portrait Of An Artist Who Just Wants To Be Left To His Own Devices

Gary larson's complex reaction to being a "star".

[In The Complete Far Side , Gary Larson offered] at least some guiding thoughts for future generations of Far Side fans, as well as some valuable perspective for up-and-coming artists.

Gary Larson was an artist down to the bone, but he wasn't necessarily a natural at being perceived as an artist. In a way, for Larson, this was both a blessing and a curse . While he shirked his increasing notoriety as much as he could during the course of his career, working on The Far Side at night and mailing bundles of panels to his editor every week, he inevitably had to confront the public perception of not only his cartoons, but of himself .

This was ultimately what led Larson to retire from cartooning; yet years later, he proved to be more forthcoming than ever in his essays included in The Complete Far Side . In a sense, it was almost as if Larson recognized that the longer his " confusing " and " obscure " art was out in the world, the more it would be misinterpreted, and so he acquiesced to offering at least some guiding thoughts for future generations of Far Side fans, as well as some valuable perspective for up-and-coming artists.

Source: The Complete Far Side Volume Two

The Far Side

The Far Side is a humorous comic series developed by Gary Larson. The series has been in production since 1979 and features a wide array of comic collections, calendars, art, and other miscellaneous items.

Advertisement

Supported by

Campaign Notebook

Meandering? Off-Script? Trump Insists His ‘Weave’ Is Oratorical Genius.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s speeches often wander from topic to topic. He insists there is an art to stitching them all together.

• Share full article

By Shawn McCreesh

For weeks, former President Donald J. Trump’s advisers have urged him to be more disciplined and to stop straying off-message.

But on Friday, while speaking at a rally in Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Trump insisted that his oratory is not a campaign distraction but rather a rhetorical triumph.

“You know, I do the weave,” he said. “You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about like nine different things, and they all come back brilliantly together, and it’s like, friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say, ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen.’”

Asked for examples of the technique, the Trump campaign provided what it called a “masterclass weave” — a four-minute, 20-second video of the candidate speaking at a rally in Asheville, N.C., in August in which he bounces from energy bills to Hunter Biden’s laptop to Venezuelan tar to mental institutions in Caracas to migrant crime to “the green new scam” to Vice President Kamala Harris.

In its disjointed way, it did all sort of seem to wend back to why he thinks he should be president again.

“Unlike Kamala Harris, who can’t put together a coherent sentence without a teleprompter, President Trump speaks for hours, telling multiple impressive stories at the same time,” said Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump. “Kamala Harris could never.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .