Emergent Knowledge in the

Third Space of Art-Science

L i z z i E M u L L E r , L y n n F r o g g E T T a n d J i L L B E n n E T T

T
c
A
r
T
S
B
A

The locus of encounter between art, science and the public can be
conceptualized as third space—a generative site of shared experience.
This article reports on a group-based psychosocial method led by
imagery and affect—the visual matrix—that enables researchers to
capture and characterize knowledge emerging in third space, where
disciplinary boundaries are fluid and there is no settled discourse. It
presents an account of the visual matrix process in the context of an art-
science collaboration on memory and forgetting. The authors show how
the method illuminates aesthetic and affective dimensions of participant
experience and captures the emerging, empathic and ethical knowing
that is characteristic of third space.

rESEArching Third SpAcE

The notion of a third culture bridging science and the hu-
manities has long been discussed [1–4]. We argue that the
“third culture” of art-science, a heterogeneous field of col-
laborative scientific and aesthetic investigations [5–8], is dis-
tinguished by its intersection with the public and its capacity
to connect audiences and stakeholders to researchers in ways
that are mutually enhancing. Art-science takes the form of
a “public experiment” [9] or “living laboratory” [10]. This
paper discusses how a new method—the visual matrix—en-
ables examination of the transdisciplinary “third space” that
arises through interaction between art, science and the pub-
lic (see Fig. 1). This third space is psychological, social and
physical, requiring unique forms of research and support.

The topic is important for 21st-century cultural organiza-
tions that support and present art-science. While civic spaces
of informal learning and cross-cultural encounter are often
theorized as “third places” [11], we extend this notion of
“thirdness” to encompass the epistemic role of third spaces
as public sites of transdisciplinary knowledge production

Lizzie Muller (academic, curator), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Email: lizzie.muller@unsw.edu.au.

Lynn Froggett (academic) University of Central Lancashire, Preston, U.K.
Email: lfroggett@uclan.ac.uk.

Jill Bennett (academic, curator) University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Email: j.bennett@unsw.edu.au.

See www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/53/3 for supplemental files associated
with this issue.

[12,13], requiring new research methods that capture emer-
gent knowledge [14]. Increasingly, cultural organizations
seek to establish themselves as “epistemic organizations”
for the production and representation of knowledge [15].
However, they struggle with public presentation of inter-
disciplinarity [16–18]; contextualization of transdisciplinary
research [19,20]; and experimentation within new spheres of
operation, formats of exhibition and models of engagement.
To innovate, cultural organizations need to understand art-
science research and its multiple points of engagement with
community or interest groups.

Collaborators in art-science programs report that the
value of such programs is significant [21], without being able
to fully account for their impact. An ethnographic study of
U.K. Arts and Science Research Fellowships reveals familiar
narratives and conventional, oppositional distinctions be-
tween art and science in describing their integration [22]. We
argue that since art-science arises in the interaction between

Fig. 1. Intersecting domains of third space. (© UNSW Art & Design)

https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01690

LEONARDO, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 321–326, 2020 321

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023

e
c
n
e

c
s
t
r
a

disciplines, methods for investigating it cannot be confined
within disciplinary practices.

Here we report on the pilot study for Curating Third Space:
The Value of Art-Science Collaboration, a research program
funded by the Australian Research Council with a number
of industry partners that applies a psychosocial method for
researching aesthetic experience—the visual matrix [23]—
to art-science exhibitions [24]. The visual matrix is a free
associative group-based methodology led by imagery and
affect that was designed for investigating the impact on
participants’ cultural imagery of aesthetic objects, events or
processes [25, online supplement 3]. Psychosocial studies
occupy a transdisciplinary space between social and psy-
chological sciences and engage with arts and humanities to
capture the situated complexity of human experience as felt,
represented and reflectively processed [26,27 online supple-
ment 1]. Psychosocial research responds to what is beyond
awareness, investigating how social relations are internalized
and reproduced, using methods attuned to the “unthought
known” [28], where the not-yet-articulated is registered in
the interactions and symbolic forms of social life. The visual
matrix specifically investigates these forms in their affective
and aesthetic dimensions as they arise (psychologically) in
the minds of participants and are communicated (socially)
in a group setting. The method is unique in that it creates
its own third space in which the art-science encounter is
reenacted, enabling researchers to witness new knowledge
emerging.

AmnesiA LAb

The focus for this study was the Amnesia Lab exhibition
in Sydney in 2014, which displayed work on memory and
forgetting by artist Shona Illingworth in collaboration with
cognitive neuropsychologists Martin Conway and Catherine
Loveday and visual media theorist/curator Jill Bennett. The
long-term collaboration included Claire, a former nurse liv-
ing with amnesia from a brain lesion, who worked with the
team [29, online supplement 2].

The visual matrix focused on a particular experimental
work-in-progress within the exhibition—a sound installa-
tion based on an electroencephalographam (EEG) measur-
ing activity in Claire’s brain. This comprised 32 speakers
suspended in cranial formation corresponding to the place-
ment of electrodes on Claire’s skull during the EEG, emitting
electronic sounds (Fig. 2).

ViSuAL MATrix

The visual matrix [30, online supplement 3] involves a group-
based setting for 8–25 participants to generate associative
thinking in response to an aesthetic stimulus. In the Amnesia
Lab matrix, 15 participants working in the field of art-science,
with various disciplinary backgrounds, were invited. Hav-
ing visited the exhibition, participants were seated in “snow-
flake formation” [31] to minimize eye contact and discourage
group dynamics or any assumption that facilitators would
lead the matrix. This “containing” [32] arrangement encour-
aged a free-associative process where not-yet-thought ideas

take shape. For 50–60 minutes participants offered verbal
descriptions of images, thoughts and feelings produced in
them by the exhibition and by the contributions of others,
without formal turn-taking. If they began to analyze their
experience, the facilitator offered an image, modeling asso-
ciative thinking.

After the matrix, chairs were rearranged into a semicircle
where participants began the process of analysis, to be com-
pleted later by the researchers. They “mapped” motifs, imag-
ery and affective intensities, capturing the matrix substance
and feeling as an interconnected whole (Fig. 3).

Previously this method had been used in public art and
arts/health contexts, but not in art-science projects [33].
Our aim in this pilot was to assess how it captured shared
experience generated by art-science in a public setting. The
method addresses two problems in researching the experi-
ence of art-science: first, that qualitative methods generally
fail to capture “in-the-moment” aesthetic experience as it
unfolds, instead relying on “after-the-event” accounts; sec-
ond, these same methods also often individualize experience.
As Froggett et al. point out, art is largely appreciated in the
context of social relationships and the shared space of the

Fig. 2. Shona Illingworth, EEG sonification, University of New South Wales,
2014. Supported by the Wellcome Trust. (© Shona Illingworth)

Fig. 3. Post-matrix “mapping,” University of New South Wales, 2014.
(© Lizzie Muller)

322 Muller, Froggett and Bennett, Emergent Knowledge in the Third Space of Art-Science

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023

e
c
n
e

c
s
t
r
a

public realm [34]. Art-science is collaborative and hence de-
pendent on shared space and on the public as interlocutors
in establishing its significance. As Froggett has argued:

Between the metrics of participation and . . . the intrin-
sic nature of an artwork lies an area that poses particular
challenges for research—that of audience experience in its
sensory, emotional, aesthetic and cognitive aspects. This
is the ground where individuals and communities can be
moved or transformed by a process, object or concept [35].

The visual matrix enables participants to symbolize aes-
thetic experience imagistically and affectively. Participants’
contributions take shape by associating first to a visual
stimulus (the exhibition) and then to one another, produc-
ing an interwoven “collage” of images, thoughts and feelings
through “in-the-moment” linguistic expression rather than
talking about experience. Instead of individualized impacts,
it enables deepened, shared engagement.

AnALySiS

Interpretation of the transcript draws on Bion’s theory of
thinking, where ideas linked to bodily states require sym-
bolization to become thinkable [36]. Personal experiences
of participants interweave in a shared process. Symbolization
depends upon capacity for “thirdness” in the thinker—pro-
duced out of creative interaction between self and object [37].
The matrix supports thirdness and hence development of
new imagery and language.

Because the matrix is a collaged, interwoven, “rhizomatic”
whole, associations generate clusters of imagery, ideas and
affective intensities that form “nodes” of experience from
which new associations arise [38]. The analysis interprets the
significance of rhizomatic connections and shifting moods of
the matrix. Here we demonstrate the analytical process us-
ing transcript extracts of matrix and post-matrix discussion.
Verbalizations are not attributed to individual speakers in the
transcripts, as contributions form a collaborative whole. In
early stages of analysis, researchers read the transcript aloud,
immersing themselves in the matrixial flow, returning in-
termittently to the audio recordings for affect and rhythm.

In the opening to the Amnesia Lab matrix, participants
found themselves troubled by an installation that did not
immediately yield its meaning. Eventually a “searching for
Claire,” and for the quality of her experience, is configured.
The first words frame the elaboration of ideas that unfolds:

Tracing. Tracing.

Tracing.
Mmm.
. . . inside the EEG, was reminiscent of being inside some

kind of buzzing hive, or swarm of insects . . .

. . . brought to mind insect activity, scurrying, whining . . .
. . . like screaming. It had a sense of pain to it . . .
. . . there was something quite spider-like, actually, about

the speakers hanging on the wires.

Spider-web.
Spiders’ legs.
Octopus for your head.

Participants are discerning something hidden whose
contours can barely be deciphered. Aversion is expressed
through imagery of insect infestation and invasion. This
passage is “experience near” [39]. Associations to “leggy”
creatures are prompted by trailing wires seemingly trans-
mitting buzzing and swarming. There is a disquieting sense
of the alien—invoking an engulfing monster/machine and
decentered “hive mind,” where consciousness disperses into
electrical impulses. The scurrying and whining are poised
on the edge of a scream. “Legginess” associates to “octopus,”
an unseen creature of the depths who, like the spider, lives
by entrapment. “Octopus for your head” associates to the
mind’s depths and its outward extension. Slowly, a curious
mood emerges:

I found the sound very intriguing, quite disturbing, uncanny,
spooky. But the more time I spent in it, the more I began to
find it quite musical—waning on the edge of sleep.

Yeah, I, at one point, was thinking—it sounds wrong, like

a slightly mistuned radio signal.

Mmm.
Almost could hear something.

With “waning on the edge of sleep” and “mistuned radio”

the matrix begins searching for Claire:

. . . this presence of Claire, she—I—she’s—she’s not—you
know, you can’t see her, she’s a kind of ghost, or specter, or
something in your experience of that exhibition, I kept trying
to picture her and think what she might be like, and does she
have agency in this experience? What’s her—my relationship
to her in this moment?

The matrix traces a haunting, tentatively apprehended
through the technology, along with the reality of memory
loss: uncanny, elusive and out of focus.

ThE “Mind” oF ThE MATrix

A working visual matrix enters a daydream-like state de-
scribed by Bion as “reverie,” which “digests” experience emo-
tionally [40]. The containment fosters “negative capability.”
Bion adopted this idea from Keats, who described the state as
“when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries,
doubts without any irritable reaching after fact or reason”
[41]. This allows participants to stay with the lived experience
of memory loss, engaging with the unknown in the face of
an unwelcome sense of the alien.

In “finding Claire,” participants begin to form an empathic
and ethical relation to her as she becomes ever more present,
demanding recognition as a center of subjective experience
rather than a haunting.

. . . I felt really—a sense of loss, in her soundscape I was
listening to hear where she was sort of firing . . .

. . . the accessibility of her to me was also me to her, and
there was this blockage there, and I thought I was engaged
with her amnesia . . .

When consciousness of searching for Claire stabilizes, the
inquiry gains confidence. Participants begin contrasting “in-
side” and “outside” perspectives.

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023

Muller, Froggett and Bennett, Emergent Knowledge in the Third Space of Art-Science 323

e
c
n
e

c
s
t
r
a

I stepped outside when I was inside, and I was on the right
side of the helmet, and then I stepped back inside and it’s
like you—I—I had this feeling of moving inside and outside
of—of her brain . . .

In conducting the analysis, the research team stays close
to the imagery and affective shifts of the matrix in appre-
hending its emergent object. The process of analysis moves
slowly outward from the matrix in a series of panel discus-
sions, sequentially asking, “What is presented?” “How is it
presented?” and “Why is it presented thus?”

“What” refers to content: insects, spideriness, haunting.
“How” relates to quality of expression, tone, rhythm—a halt-
ing “mmmn, mmmn” slows the associative flow, fostering a
meditative mood. Early on, this matrix achieves a contain-
ment that accommodates the disturbing ideas it generates.
There is no rush; it takes time to struggle with the material.
This is a transmission of affect from the installation itself,
which defies rapid assimilation, demands attunement and
yields a gradual transformation.

“Why” questions imply context and serve as a reminder
that art can create conditions in which the human subject is
recognized through technological mediation. They raise an
ethical question—can one access the experience of another?

I found it almost excessively intimate, as if I was inside this
woman’s brain, and she didn’t give me permission to be there,
and I was wondering what I was listening to. I thought to
myself maybe I’m a thought inside her brain.

Because a visual matrix moves constantly between experi-
ences of individuals and the group, it generates a search for
empathic connection and ethical questions relating to the
locus of experience and its knowability. There is subject/ob-
ject reversal here that turns the “normal” audience member
with stable identity/memory into a thought within Claire’s
encompassing brain. The inside/outside motif also alludes
to distinctions between art and science: knowledge that de-
pends on empathy, identification and aesthetic sensibility
(art) and the attempted objectivity of a knower positioned
as external to its object (science).

A further question arises from the idea of being a thought
inside another’s brain—whether subjectivity is unitary and
bounded, or dispersed and permeable; and if the latter, then
what can be “held” in a mind? The transdisciplinary encoun-
ter produces knowledge poised between the lure and the risk
of approaching the other.

in-BETwEEn ExpEriEncES

In art-science, knowledge becomes unsettled. Led by imag-
ery rather than discourse, the visual matrix elicits figurative
language as it develops in-between domains. In a collaging
of interrelated imagery, the matrix holds together contradic-
tions and differences, while mapping affective intensities that
cumulatively reveal shared experiences.

Expert knowledge is vital but restricts participants’ ho-
rizons. The matrix encourages “third position thinking.”
Psychoanalyst Ron Britton describes this as the capacity to
observe the self, while being oneself, and from this position
and one’s own point of view to hold self and other continu-
ously in mind [42]. Thirdness does not efface individuality
in the service of collectivity, or vice versa. Associations may
originate in personal or disciplinary knowledge but, para-
phrasing Britton, participants can view other disciplines
from the perspective of their own and, holding art and
science continuously in mind, allow a third perspective to
emerge.

The visual matrix was originally developed to help those
without expert knowledge to articulate their experience of
artworks. This pilot suggests it may also help experts ar-
ticulate experiences beyond their professional stance, thus
allowing formative as well as summative evaluation, and sup-
porting transdisciplinary knowledge.

The third space of art-science fosters collaborative think-
ing in an encounter between different epistemic perspectives
and domains of study. The challenge is to keep open a space
of dialogue between scientific and artistic modes of thought,
in a setting that supports thirdness, thus overcoming disci-
plinary encampments that serve as an intellectual defense
against the unknown.

In revealing complexity of experience as it is reenacted,
the matrix can also illuminate how artistic intention is trans-
formed into audience reception. Artist Shona Illingworth
participated in the matrix and first-stage research analysis,
observing:

As an artist you have very little access to the experience that
people have in your work . . . there’s a big space that’s miss-
ing that gets filled with opinion. . . . [The matrix asks] not
just “did it work”—but about a deeper engagement with the
concept.

Conventional evaluation assumes that audiences encoun-
ter the finished work and then report on impact. In Amnesia
Lab the visual matrix was part of an ongoing research col-
laboration exploring the complexities of living with memory
loss and aiming at public engagement in a subject little un-
derstood by either science or art. The visual matrix facilitated
this engagement, enabling understanding of its aesthetic
process.

A proposition to explore is whether a visual matrix pro-
duces knowledge characteristic of all third space: emergent,
empathic, searching, infused with sensory and affective
experience, at ease with uncertainty. It is also relational,
presuming a provisional standpoint that holds the other
continuously in mind. The third space is not “collective” but
is shared, effacing neither individuality nor disciplinarity, but
nevertheless creating conditions in which new knowledge
can emerge.

324 Muller, Froggett and Bennett, Emergent Knowledge in the Third Space of Art-Science

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023

e
c
n
e

c
s
t
r
a

Acknowledgments

Industry partners in Curating Third Space include Australia Council for
the Arts; Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, Sydney; Royal Institu-
tion of Australia; Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, U.K.;
ArtScience Museum, Singapore. Funded by an Australian Research
Council Linkage Grant.

References and Notes

21 In the Wellcome Trust’s Sciart scheme, 82% of grant recipients inter-
viewed reported “new insights”; scientists spoke of “intangible value
and speculative benefit.” P. Glinkowski and A. Bamford, Insight and
Exchange (London: Wellcome Trust, 2009) p. 71.

22 J. Leach, “Constituting Aesthetics and Utility,” HAU: Journal of Eth-

nographic Theory 2, No. 1, 247–268 (2012).

23 This method was developed at University of Central Lancashire

(funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council, U.K.)

1 C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures: A Second Look (Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, 1998).

24 See Curating Third Space [14].

2 A. Miller, Colliding Worlds (New York: Norton, 2014).

3 C. Raffl, “The Two Cultures: A Third Look,” in R. Trappl, ed., Cyber-
netics and Systems (Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies,
2006) pp. 318–323.

4 G. Ortolano, The Two Cultures Controversy: Science, Literature and
Cultural Politics in Postwar Britain (New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2009)

5 G. Born and A. Barry, “Art-Science,” Journal of Cultural Economy 3,

No. 1, 103–119 (2010).

6 B. B. Wilson, B. Hawkins and S. Sim, eds., Art, Science and Cultural
Understanding (Champaign, IL: Common Ground, 2014) pp. 4–29.

7 Art-science has long been promoted through Leonardo; see for ex-
ample B. Root-Bernstein et al., “ArtScience: Integrative Collabora-
tion to Create a Sustainable Future,” Leonardo 44, No. 3, 192 (2011).

J. Bennett, “Transdisciplinary Aesthetics,” in M. Kelly, ed., Oxford
Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

9 Born and Barry [5].

10 L. Muller and E.A. Edmonds, “Living Laboratories for Interactive

Art,” CoDesign 2, No. 4, 195–207 (2006).

11 R. Oldenburg, The Great Good Place: Café, Coffee Shops, Community
Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How
They Get You Through the Day (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House Pub-
lishers, 1989).

12 Born and Barry [5].

13 Muller and Edmonds [10].

14 Data in this paper are taken from the pilot of Curating Third Space:
The Value of Art-Science Collaboration, a project funded by the
Australian Research Council.

25 L. Froggett, J. Manley and A.N. Roy, “The Visual Matrix Method:
Imagery and Affect in a Group-Based Research Setting,” Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 16,
No. 3 (2015).

26 P. Stenner and D. Taylor, “Psychosocial Welfare: Reflections on an
Emerging Field,” Critical Social Policy 28, No. 4, 415–437 (2008).

27 L. Froggett, “Psychosocial Research,” in Becker, Bryman and Fergu-
son, eds., Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social Work:
Themes, Methods and Approaches (Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press, 2012)
pp. 179–186.

28 C. Bollas, Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known (London: Free As-

sociation Books, 1989).

29 C. Loveday and M. Conway, “Using SenseCam with an Amnesic
Patient: Accessing Inaccessible Everyday Memories,” Memory 19,
No. 7, 697–704 (2011); Claire is refered to as CR.

30 Froggett, Manley and Roy [25].

31 Psychosocial Research Unit, “The Visual Matrix,” a project funded
by the Australian Research Council: https://youtu.be/ttHHty0f7Pg
(accessed 21 January 2018).

32 Containment supports capacity to withstand uncertainty; symbolic
systems themselves provide containers for processing experience.
W. Bion, Attention and Interpretation (London: Karnac, 1970).

33 It has since been used in The Barometer of My Heart—a Wellcome
Trust–funded collaboration between artist Mark Storer and endo-
crinologist Leighton Seal; L. Froggett, J. Manley and J. Wainwright
“The Barometer of My Heart: Visual Matrix Research and Evaluation
Project” (Preston, U.K.: University of Central Lancashire, 2017).

34 L. Froggett et al., “Public Art and Local Civic Engagement,” Final
Report, Arts & Humanities Research Council (2014): https://clok
.uclan.ac.uk/10961/1/AHRC_CV20RDA_TOC_FINAL_2.pdf (ac-
cessed 21 July 2017).

15 R. Miettinen and J. Virkkunen, “Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and

35 Froggett et al. [34], p. 9.

Organisational Change,” Organisation 12, 437–456 (2005).

16 B. Arends and D. Thackara, Experiment: Conversations in Art and

Science (London: Wellcome Trust, 2003).

17 L. Muller, “Learning from Experience,” in L. Candy and E. Edmonds,
eds., Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner (Faring-
don, Oxfordshire, U.K.: Libri Publishing, 2011).

18 C. Christov-Bakargiev, “Worldly Worldling: The Imaginal Fields
of Science/Art,” Mousse Magazine (2014): www.moussemagazine.it
/arolyn-christov-bakargiev-claire-pentecost-2014 (accessed 24 Janu-
ary 2018).

36 Froggett et al. [25].

37 R. Britton, “Subjectivity, Objectivity and Triangular Space,” Belief

and Imagination (London: Routledge, 1988).

38 The method draws on Deleuze and Guattari on the affect/experien-
tial primacy of image, and on Lorenzer on “scenic understanding.”
See G. Deleuze and F. Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (London: Con-
tinuum, 1988); A. Lorenzer, “Tiefenhermeneutische Kulturanalyse,”
in A. Lorenzer, ed., Kultur-Analysen: Psychoanalytische Studien zur
Kultur (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1986) pp. 11–98. Here, the focus is on third
space and symbolization.

19 H. Nowotny, Re-Thinking Science (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press,

39 C. Geertz, “From the Native’s Point of View,” Bulletin of the American

2001).

20 Raffl [3].

Academy of Arts and Sciences 28, No. 1, 26–45 (1974).

40 Froggett et al. [25].

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023

Muller, Froggett and Bennett, Emergent Knowledge in the Third Space of Art-Science 325

e
c
n
e

c
s
t
r
a

41 J. Keats, “On Negative Capability,” Keats: Complete Works (Cam-

bridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1817) p. 227.

42 Britton [37].

Manuscript received 9 February 2018.

Lizzie MuLLer is Associate Professor at UNSW Art and
Design. She is a curator specializing in audience experience
and collaborative cultures. Her curatorial projects blending
art, science and technology have been shown in Australia, the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. She teaches
in the Master of Curating and Cultural Leadership.

Lynn Froggett is Professor of Psychosocial Studies at the
University of Central Lancashire, U.K., and director of the
Institute for Citizenship, Society and Change. She has a trans-
disciplinary background in the humanities and social sciences.
Her research over the last 20 years has focused on the socially
engaged arts in health, welfare, communities, civil society and
the cultural sector.

JiLL Bennett is Scientia Professor and Australian Research
Council Laureate Fellow at UNSW Sydney, Art & Design,
where she is Director of fEEL—Felt Experience & Empathy
Lab and founding Director of The Big Anxiety festival of people,
art and science.

A N N O U N C E M E N T / C A L L F O R PA P E R S

open call for Leonardo Journal:
Music and Sound Art

The editors of Leonardo are pleased to announce that beginning with Volume 54 (2021)
we will begin publishing 6 issues annually, retiring Leonardo Music Journal as a standalone
publication and including articles on music and sound art throughout the year.

We will feature articles written by composers and artists about their own work in three
editorial areas. First, the interplay between new technologies, music and sound art. Second,
documentation on ways in which contemporary science and technology are changing our
understanding of sound and music, as well as other ways in which science and technology
may be relevant to contemporary composers and sound artists. Third, the work of composers
and sound artists developing new multimedia art forms that combine sound with other media,
particularly works that take advantage of new multimedia and interactive technologies.

This call is open ended, and we accept submissions at any time.

Manuscript subMissions

We are soliciting articles (papers of up to 3,500 words) and shorter artists’ statements
(up to 2,000 words).

For detailed instructions for manuscript and art preparation,
visit www.leonardo.info/authors-journals.

To submit a completed manuscript, upload at www.editorialexpress.com/leonardo.

326 Muller, Froggett and Bennett, Emergent Knowledge in the Third Space of Art-Science

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/53/3/321/1881969/leon_a_01690.pdf by guest on 08 September 2023 Emergent Knowledge in the image

Download pdf