The
17th Annual Conference of the
Society for Literature and Science
Austin,
Texas. October 23-26, 2003
Reviewed by Michael Punt
Mpunt@easynet.co.uk
The theme of this year's conference of the
Society of Literature and Science was Rethinking
Space + Time Across Science, Literature,
and the Arts. Divided into 6 streams (literature,
literature and media, art history, art and
media, theory across disciplines, science,
technology medicine and mathematics) the
conference attracted around three hundred
delegates and presenters most of whom were
keen to share their research with others
in an interdisciplinary field that has become
established through this and other academic
initiatives. Distributed over two and a
half days the complexity of the preplanning
of this event was matched only by the enormity
of the task that the attendees had choosing
where to be next. Such was the richness
and potential of what was at stake that
it was almost impossible to do justice to
the intellectual energy that the event had
attracted.
Three main disciplines were active in the
gathering: art history, literary criticism,
and media theory. Some scientists and artists
also contributed, although largely under
the rubric of art and literature. The papers
that were delivered ranged from very specific
and detailed reports of ongoing research
into a particular question, to ambitious
attempts to deal with meta-issues and the
future of specific strands of academic study.
In particular the impact of new modes of
distribution and reception on narrative
structure, and the consequences of 'n-dimensional'
space for art history (as a discipline)
seemed to capture the most imaginations.
Science, when it was on the agenda, seemed
to comprise either science fiction or discussions
of parascience in all its manifestations
from telepathy to spiritualism and beyond.
There were of course no conclusions to this
debate, rather the usual academic elaboration
of the tapestry of concerns adding more
and more detail to be accounted for. For
those who chose to participate in the dynamic
exchanges, the conference offered a brief,
but intense charge to the system which helped
to shake off the residues of the ivory tower
that lone scholars acquire during the long
hours of solitary page turning. It also
offered a sense of belonging to many who
were clearly working on topics under the
impression that they were intellectually
isolated. Such immediate benefits, however,
are mere reminders of the real opportunities
that the topic offered: nothing less than
the rescue of a number of discourses spiralling
out of control under the inflationary pressure
of exponential growth.
Linda Dalrymple Henderson and Bruce Clarke,
who organised the event and somehow made
everything happen in sequence and on time
have marked a radical research agenda and
it is a pity that their initiatives were
not more fully exploited by all the participants.
Instead there was the occasional myopia
as some papers stayed within their own terms
as if the audience was not framing
the discussion that made their particular
historical or theoretical research significant.
At its worst one was often left with the
impression that there was little interest
in being heard (much less understood) as
a number of speakers read a chapter, or
reiterated the research from a graduate
thesis at breakneck speed. Thankfully, however,
most presentations seized the opportunities
that the committee had made available and
took risks with new ideas that could be
tested in a supportive, yet critical environment
of peers. Some of the credit for this atmosphere
needs to go to Linda Henderson's own published
research which clearly liberated the discussion
to include topics that some years ago would
have been closeted out of sight of mainstream
art history. Her's was a risky strategy
but it is now clear that the disavowal of
a generalised dissatisfaction with a single
reality evident at the scientific and artistic
margins of the twentieth century is no longer
sustainable, and one of the achievements
of this conference was to show the extent
to which a radical engagement with meta-issues
can offer an alternative to the cul-de-sac
of a narrow empiricism driven by the idea
of progress.
The Society of Literature and Science (currently
reviewing its name so as to appear more
inclusive and engage directly with artists)
is clearly an intellectual community driven
by ideas that are central to the Leonardo
community, and one which has the revisionist potential
in the arts and sciences that serves the
wider ambitions of contemporary historiography
Their next conference, in Paris 2004, is
already at the planning stage and tracking
its progress can be done on line at: http://english.ttu.edu/sls
where the abstracts of this year's papers
are also available. On the basis of the
17th conference this is certainly
an event to pencil in for next year.
Note: SLS Paris 2004 is co-organized by
Yves Abrioux (Université Paris 3),
Noëlle Batt (Université Paris 8)
and Mathieu Duplay (Université Lille
3.email: slsparis04@aol.com).