The appropriation of scientific concepts by the humanities and the visual arts exemplifies what many feel are both the pitfalls and possibilities of interdisciplinary engagement. The principle of entropy, which C. P. Snow claimed could serve as a litmus test of the ‘two cultures’ divide, provides an excellent starting point for exploring how artists have employed scientific concepts far beyond their original contexts. As a case study in interdisciplinarity, the use of entropy in the visual arts is also a lens to consider the evolution of an artistic proposal from the 1960s known as ‘system aesthetics’. As an early challenge to the clean demarcation of art and science, system aesthetics was a precedent for what might be described as the emergence of an ecosystem aesthetics within contemporary art and design today.
BennettJane. 2010. Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things.Durham: Duke University Press.
2.
BoisYves-Alain, and KraussRosalind. 1996. A user's guide to entropy.October78: 38–88.
3.
BridgmanPercy William.1941. The nature of thermodynamics.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
4.
BurnhamJack. 1968. System esthetics. Artforum7: 30–35.
5.
CanalesJimena.2005. Einstein, Bergson, and the experiment that failed: intellectual cooperation at the League of Nations.Modern Language Notes120: 1168–91.
6.
GoodingMel.2006. herman de vries: Chance and change.London: Thames and Hudson.
7.
HunterMatthew C.2010. Experiment, theory, representation: Robert Hooke's material models. In Beyond mimesis and convention: representation in art and science, eds. Roman Frigg and Matthew C. Hunter, 193–220.Netherlands: Springer.
8.
JonesPeter Lloyd. 1973. Some thoughts on Rudolf Arnheim's book Entropy and Art.Leonardo6: 29–35.
9.
KaiserPhilipp, ed. 2006. Simon Starling: cuttings.Berlin: Hatje Cantz.
10.
KasulisThomas P.2004. Shinto: the way home.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
11.
LabingerJay A., and CollinsHarry, eds. 2001. The one culture? a conversation about science.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
LatourBruno.1993. We have never been modern.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13.
LatourBruno, and WeibelPeter, eds. 2005. Making things public: atmospheres of democracy.Cambridge: MIT Press.
SmithsonRobert. 1996a. Entropy and the new monuments. In Robert Smithson: the collected writings, ed. Jack Flam, 10–23.Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
SmithsonRobert. 1996b. Entropy made visible, interview with Alison Sky. In Robert Smithson: the collected writings, ed. Jack Flam, 301–309.Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
SmithsonRobert. 1996c. Cultural confinement. In Robert Smithson: the collected writings, ed. Jack Flam, 154–157.Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
SnowC. P.1998. The two cultures.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
SokalAlan.1996. Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.Social Text46/47: 217–52.
27.
SokalAlan, and BricmontJean. 1999. Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador.
28.
SchwellerRandall L.2014. Maxwell's demon and the golden apple: global discord in the new millennium.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
YangAndrew S.2011. Interdisciplinarity as critical inquiry: visualizing the art/bioscience interface.Interdisciplinary Science Reviews36: 42–54.
30.
YangAndrew S.2015. That drunken conversation between two cultures: art, science, and the possibility of meaningful uncertainty.Leonardo48: 318–21.
