At first glance, art and science appear to belong to entirely separate spheres. Visual, performative, applied, literary, media, or conceptual arts typically operate within aesthetic, intuitive, and creative domains, whereas academic and applied sciences are grounded in replicable research methods, empirical evidence, and theoretical frameworks.
The division between these realms, along with the compartmentalisation of scientific disciplines, can be traced back to the Scientific Revolution in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. This period represents a turning point in how knowledge was classified and practised. Thinkers such as Galileo, Newton, and Descartes helped establish science as a rational, systematic pursuit of truth, distancing it from the symbolic and interpretive nature of art, artisanal practices, and medieval scholastic traditions (Manchul, 2021). By the 18th-century Enlightenment, this division became more clearly defined. Science was increasingly associated with reason, objectivity, and progress, while art came to be understood as a domain focused on beauty, emotion, and subjectivity. Craft, in contrast, was increasingly seen as involving manual and working-class skills rather than intellectual or creative innovation. This separation was further institutionalised during the 19th-century Industrial Revolution with the creation of specialised institutions such as art academies, scientific laboratories, and vocational training centres. These developments reinforced the perception of art, science, and craft as distinct and independent domains.
The 20th century was marked by the rapid emergence of new academic disciplines in response to changing labour market demands and evolving societal challenges. Fields such as engineering, microeconomics, migration studies, Indigenous studies, and border studies began to take shape (Robb, 2008). Within these disciplines, distinct research methods and paradigms developed, shaping not only approaches to empirical problems but also scholarly identities and the boundaries of academic fields (Brandmayr, 2025). In the decades that followed, critical theory, postmodernism, and environmental sciences began to challenge the rigid divisions between academic disciplines, as well as the broader separation between science, art, and craft (Halpern, 2011). The concept of transdisciplinarity gained momentum in the early 21st century, not least due to the wicked and complex nature of contemporary socioeconomic, political, and ecological crises. At the same time, a growing interest in art-based and Indigenous methods, along with alternative forms of education, emerged. This development reflects the recognition of diverse ways of knowing the world that go beyond textual analysis, common in the social sciences, and experimental design, typical of the natural sciences. Art-based research methods, in particular, allow for the inclusion of emotional and sensory dimensions in the research process, creating space for alternative voices and representations (Greenwood, 2019).
The CAS webinar series Art/Place aims to deepen the dialogue between the arts and social sciences. In the first edition of the series, artists Mhairi Killin, Elisabeth Bourne, and Marieke ten Berge shared insights into their connection with Svalbard and discussed how the place informs and shapes their artistic practices.
A key takeaway from the discussion was that shared ground between art and social science is to be found in the close relationship between creativity and critical thinking. Both are capacities that begin with reflection on one’s beliefs and actions, and extend toward problem-solving, imagining alternatives, and expressing new possibilities through artistic or scholarly work. As such, creativity and critical thinking function as everyday, meta-level practices that help us not only understand what exists but also envision what could be. While these capacities can be trained, they also require ongoing support and nurturing.
In this context, the artists highlighted the importance of daily observation as a foundational practice for engaging with more-than-human environments. Observation, however, involves more than simply noting what is present or how matter, life, and places change over time. Deep (and participatory) observation within creative work aims to grasp how and why things are the way they are. This process not only informs artistic representation of places but also entails reimagining current social practices and ways of being. As such, a concern for care for life is central to the work of all three artists.
Participatory and immersive observation has been a pivot of social science enquiry in disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, and human geography since the early 20th-century fieldwork revolution. Bardon et al. (2020, p. 1) emphasize that “observation is the motor of empiricism [and denotes] a broader epistemological position, which supposes that to study a phenomenon, one must watch it attentively and at length.” Despite the substantial contributions of observational research to our scientific understanding of more-than-human relationships, this approach also faces significant challenges. One long-standing issue is the difficulty of representing others without projecting one’s own worldview onto them (for a detailed account, see Jackson, 1983). Moreover, observation as a method based on long-term fieldwork is threatened by neoliberal pressures beleaguering academia. Chronic underfunding, demands to produce “business-relevant research,” and the growing fascination with artificial intelligence as a preferred analytical tool are all undermining immersive field research. At the same time, social sciences are increasingly targeted by right-wing political actors who attempt to discredit their value to society.
Indeed, this circumstance represents a broader attack on critical thinking embedded in observations, which inform theories that help us make sense of the world. These theories offer the language and conceptual tools needed to understand, critique, and reimagine the social and environmental conditions in which we live. Central to this process are imaginaries, which are consciously or unconsciously held visions that shape how societies and social groups think about what is possible, desirable, or inevitable.
Critical thinking and creativity are essential elements of a flourishing society. They must be protected and nurtured, especially in a climate increasingly marked by extremism, efforts to suppress plurality, and a narrow economistic worldview that reduces value to monetary terms alone.
Dorothee Bohn & Dina Brode-Roger
References
Bardon T., Garreau L., Abdallah C., Journé B., & Korica M. (2020). Rethinking Observation: Challenges and Practices. M@n@gement, 23(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v23i3.5562
Brandmayr, F. (2025). Disciplinary identity and the idea of a unified social science: A survey of British academics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 111, 18–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.04.002
Greenwood, J. (2019). Arts-Based Research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.29
Halpern, M.K. (2011). Across the great divide: Boundaries and boundary objects in art and science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394040
Jackson, P. (1983). Principles and Problems of Participant Observation. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 65(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/490843
Manchul, B. (2021). Disciplinary knowledge: history, evolution, and contemporary scientific status. European Philosophical and Historical Discourse,7 (2), 31-36. DOI: 10.46340/ephd.2021.7.2.5
Thematic Network on Critical Arctic Studies 