the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dynamics and roles in art and climate science collaborations: experiences from the University of Hamburg
Abstract. Art and science collaborations enable new means for science communication, knowledge production, and activism. Previous work has often focused on the outcome of such endeavors and on an external description of these collaborations, and less on the personal dynamics in the collaboration itself. Our study of art and science collaborations in the project "Portraits of Climate" at the University of Hamburg takes a closer look at internal dynamics and roles and shows that the value or success of a collaboration does not depend on whether it is a one-way or a two-way collaboration, or whether the roles are classically separated in artist and scientist or are mixed. Instead, the decisive factors lie in mutual understanding, acceptance of team dynamics, and the subjective perceptions of participants – shaped by their motivations, backgrounds, and relationships with the partners – which often differs from an objective external description of the process observed. The project highlighted the importance of safe spaces, trust, and openness, while also revealing the fragility of these conditions without active facilitation and support. Although constrained to a small group of participants and visitors, the project demonstrated the potential of art and science collaborations to stimulate intellectual growth, to overcome one's predefined role, and to open a gateway for critical reflection, thereby catalyzing new approaches to addressing the environmental challenges of our time.
- Preprint
(712 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5213', Todd Siler, 09 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-5213/egusphere-2025-5213-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-5213-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Pagnone, 22 Dec 2025
We would like to sincerely thank Todd Siler for your constructive and encouraging comments, and especially for highlighting the importance of ArtScience collaborations in climate and environmental research.
We greatly appreciate the extensive list of references provided; we will carefully consider and incorporate a selection of these into our manuscript.
Your added factors contributing to a “successful collaboration” have been particularly enlightening. We recognize the need for clearer definitions, especially given the diversity of „related yet distinct, terms—Art & Science, art-science, Art/Science, Science/Art, SciArt, and ArtScience". However, we remain cautious about over-formalizing something that is inherently fluid and deep.
Your comments have also inspired us to reflect on how to better support and structure such collaborations.
As a side note, we would like to emphasize that, in some of our case studies, the expectations associated with experience in art and science collaborations sometimes hindered the collaborative process. Conversely, some newcomers, without expectations, approached the collaboration with fresh perspectives, leading to stronger bounds.
Once again, we are deeply grateful for your thoughtful support and comments, which will significantly enriched our work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5213-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Pagnone, 22 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5213', Saul E. Halfon, 14 May 2026
The paper by Pagnone et al describes a Science and Art (SciArt) project in which a scientist and artist are paired to create a visual arts piece on some aspect of climate change. The goal of the project is to create five such pairs, have them work in an open process, and then interview them to collect reflections on the process they developed. The paper then maps these outcomes and draws conclusions about the different paths these collaborative pairs took, as well as what each found valuable or not valuable about the process. The bottom line is that the collaborators took very different routes, generally found the process to be personally valuable, and produced a set of compelling art pieces.
I see two ways to respond to this paper – one with a focus on the underlying project and the other with a focus on the paper. I will do both.
The Project:
I am very supportive of these kinds of collaborations. SciArt collaborations as a subset of interdisciplinary work (or what I prefer to call pluralistic collaboration) are an important feature of broadened conceptions of scientific work. As the paper points out, such collaborations have strong local benefits in creating meaningful experiences and relationships between the contributors and in providing the opportunity to produce meaningful pieces that can engage with public audiences. Such projects can have a meaningful impact on public discourse and knowledge about science. They are also important opportunities for scientists, in particular, to get out of their worlds and to see and engage the world in new ways – in the best case, they lead to new science or new kinds of scientific practice. The idea of setting up such a collaboration explicitly as an experiment with five different cases is a novel and interesting proposition, and well worth doing.
All that being said, I think that the authors could have done more to formulate this as both a rich collaboration and a challenging experiment. As a collaboration, simple pairs of “a scientist and an artist” have been done innumerable times, and as such, this structure promises little beyond the specific artistic output and the specific professional connection developed within the pair. These are fine goals, and such a project is definitely worth doing for the reasons I list above, but I am not convinced that this version offers much that is new to the SciArt literature. In other words, this project seems to be more set up to accomplish some local goals than to produce new knowledge or insights appropriate for a journal. Doing the latter would require new forms of collaboration that might test some boundary or push knowledge in some unexpected or remarkable way. The project does not do that.
Nor does the project function particularly well as an experiment – its petri dish “mix and observe” set-up does not test or promulgate any underlying theory of what should be mixed and why. As such, it does not seem to be testing anything in particular. Naturalistic experiments have their place, but are most interesting when observing a novel configuration, not when establishing a commonly used collaborative structure. There are many ways that this project could have been subtly or explicitly tweaked that would have produced much more robust results.
The Paper:
While there are some insights offered by the paper, none are pushed very far and thus the learning and generalizability offered by this paper is relatively low. For the most part, this feels like a report on an interesting project (though see my notes above) with some reflections rather than a systematic analysis intended to derive significant new knowledge from that project. Different groups assumed different roles: some succeeded, some failed. But what can we learn from the specific differences? Are there any patterns? Anything generalizable? I want to know what we can learn from this project beyond the observation that relationships were built and that each project took its own course.
Toward rectifying this lack of analysis, I briefly offer three missed opportunities for extension, theorizing, and discussion.
My first thought was triggered by the observation that there was “no real storming stage” (line 115). This seems significant in understanding the kind of project that has been established – there is no cognitive friction or clash of values, worldviews, or perspectives. This recognition speaks to the joint acknowledgements later in the paper that while the collaborations provided “new perspectives” for the scientists, these perspectives “did not influence their work.” Thus, despite the conclusion asserting that Portraits of Climate “ultimately fostered new means of knowledge production and outreach”, neither of those outcomes was evident to any significant extent in the reported details. New forms of knowledge production are not conceptualized, and outreach is explicitly eschewed as a project goal at the outset of the paper.
The authors suggest instead that the value of the project is relational – that the participants for the most part felt more connected to each other after the project. But there is not really an exploration of forms of relationality or any sense for why some collaborations worked and others did not. In other words, the finding of connection is a thin outcome and in no way surprising – opportunities to build relations often build relations. We get only the thinnest explanation for the choice to focus on relationality rather than changing scientific practice or knowledge, challenging existing approaches, or science communication, and no real exploration of the consequences of that choice for the value of the project.
And so, the conclusion that creating comfortable spaces for collaboration are more likely to lead to success really begs the question. If success is mere completion of a project, this is true. If success is learning or furthering knowledge, I am seeing little evidence or discussion to support this position. A more fruitful approach for the paper may be an exploration of how to create situations of mutual respect amongst disagreement or discomfort. Asking this kind of question could be the basis for a real experiment, but would send the project in a very different direction. And, this would certainly shift the focus of the analysis from what is “valued” by the participants to what has “value” for either the science or the social science communities.
A second opportunity that the paper seems to overlook is in comparing the individual arts-pieces’ insights to each other. What can be said about the fact that “Mysterium Völlii” provides a narrative of resilience, “Journey Through Time” a narrative of crisis, and “The Little Shrimps” a narrative of the Anthropocene? What does this tell us about the way that different scientists (or artists?) craft and understand value in their work? How do these different narratives shape a coherent public engagement project around climate change? Or leaning into the focus of the paper itself, is the value of a more open development process precisely that individual projects can come to very different conclusions about where we sit in the world of climate change, and does this have value in itself? A deeper engagement with the outcomes of the project in relation to the process could provide an interesting and informative lens on what happened, within the frame of the existing project structure.
Finally, I was also struck by the notion that “this realization underscored the fundamental humanity of craft and skill” (line 236). Combined with the later insight that science and art are similar in crucial ways (section 3.5), and the much earlier note that science and art differ in their relation to clarity and ambiguity (86-87), there is a missed opportunity here to explore the nature of their similarities and difference around craft, skill, communication, and epistemology. As I note above, I think that there is epistemic value in discomfort, so this similarity is what actually bothers me about many SciArt collaborations. Can you convince me that the value of similarity and comfort outweighs the value of discomfort and difference in collaboration?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5213-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,296 | 961 | 174 | 2,431 | 193 | 163 |
- HTML: 1,296
- PDF: 961
- XML: 174
- Total: 2,431
- BibTeX: 193
- EndNote: 163
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1