theory4,5. In short, it makes no sense to be interested in the properties of objects as such; only the relationships that link these “objects” to each other matter. By extension, the classical distinctions between observer and observed, subject and object, scientific theory and described world, no longer hold. While she proposes that there is no objective reality, independent of any point of view, her thesis, as radical as it is, raises questions.

If the things of the world have no reality in themselves and if what we call reality is only relations, could this fundamentally counter-intuitive approach inspire, if not become, the subject of an artistic approach? What sensible form could be given to it? These were the first questions that initiated the research-creation approach we undertook with artist Caroline Delétoille and physicist Aurore Young.

Artists and Scientists in Dialogue

At the beginning of the last century, the possibility of an in-depth dialogue between the arts and sciences seemed impossible as the two worlds had moved away from each other, particularly in the 19th century. “Two cultures”6 had formed, with distinct scopes and languages7. As Bohr rightly pointed out in a philosophical essay on the unity of knowledge, science “consists of systematic efforts to increase our experience and develop concepts appropriate to its imple-mentation”, while art brings together “more individual efforts, more based on sensitivity, to awaken feelings that evoke the totality of our situation”8.

Yet, the 20th century was also the one where, precisely, encounters between art-ists and scientists developed. The advent of quantum physics and the theory of relativity created a breach that resonated with artistic avant-gardes, among which the surrealists. This interest intensified after World War II with the emergence of collaborative initiatives bringing together scientists, engineers, and artists, such as the organization E.A.T. (Experiments in Arts and Technology) and the CAVS (Center for Advanced Visual Studies) at MIT.

These rapprochements accelerated at the turn of the 1980s with the advent of digital art and bio-art, based on advancements in technosciences. A “third cul-ture”9 emerged, a hybrid of art, science, and technology, which has continued to amplify and has gradually become institutionalized10. This third culture enabled a mutual enrichment of the artistic and scientific worlds.

What could artists have been seeking by participating in such programs? A first motivation, quite obvious, lies in the very nature of their practices. Avant-garde practices are characterized by a desire for all-out experimentation. Indeed, the exploration of borders at the edge of the art world, including incursions into the scientific universe, proved to be a relatively natural terrain for creation. A second motivation can be found at a finer level, by examining the intentions expressed by the artists. For many, the encounter with scientists stems from common ques-tions about understanding the world, elucidating the invisible mechanisms that underpin it.

From another perspective, developments within the scientific world itself can provide explanatory elements. Contemporary sciences are marked by two major inflections compared to classical sciences: their abstraction and their techniciza-tion. Through the theories of the infinitely large (special and general relativity) and the infinitely small (quantum physics), an epistemological rupture occurred compared to classical physics, where complexity, indeterminism, and uncertainty have taken a considerable place11.