Non-scientific science and non-artistic art: ‘Other’ knowledges in the political practice of Forensic Architecture

How do the disciplinary boundaries of arts education shape art’s political horizons? Sixty-five years on from CP Snow’s controversial lecture The Two Cultures, both his protagonists (on one side the arts and humanities, on the other the sciences, management, finance) have claimed significant epistemological, political and practical ground. The distance that separates them, however, appears greater than ever. Art often stands in opposition to the hegemonic tendencies of positivist forms of knowledge, dismissing them as incompatible with its political goals. Given the formal disciplinary setting of art education, exacerbated in the competitive modern academy, I suggest that such restrictions to art’s epistemological and practical horizons are, in fact, politically counterproductive. I propose that by rejecting an array of knowledges – particularly those based on ideals such as rationalism, evidence and epistemological certainty – as a priori incompatible with artistic practice, artistic education may be doing a considerable disservice to the political and social interventions of art that are shaped by it. To suggest that art could tactically engage with alternative forms of knowledge to expand the political field, I propose artist group Forensic Architecture as an example of a practice that circumvents traditional disciplinary limitations to, in Snow’s parlance, become a bona fide culture characterized by political credibility, albeit at the expense of limiting art’s epistemic influence in the process.