A Video Interview with In4Art

Artwork from roots, by Diana Scherer

In4Art

In November of last year I introduced readers to the work of Rodolfo and Lija Groenewoud van Vliet.

As the post explains, they founded the In4Art organization (back in 2015) with the mission to increase the impact of innovative art in society and the economy, seeing art as a powerful engine for responsible innovations.

The pair believe that art can act as an accelerator for innovation, as well as offering reflections on our fast-changing high-tech society. By translating that into art-driven innovations they aim to enable impact from economical, ethical, environmental, social and legal perspectives.

From the Website:

The project’s focus is to increase the impact of art in society and economy by bringing systematic change to the domains of circular economy, material research and next generation internet. Care and Environment, a mix of sustainable development goals and positive impact for the broad society.

How do they go about this? Well, In4Art creates space for experiments on the intersection of art, science and technology. It works to translate the outcomes into inspiration, strategic implications and responsible innovations, acting as a partner in the development of artistic prototypes into art-driven innovations and sharing their trans-formative potential, while building a network of forward looking, 21st century thinkers and doers.

The founders have created the  Art-Driven Innovation method, guiding In4Art and its innovation projects, collections, experiments and research, focusing on breakthrough technologies.

The Video Interview

As an investigator I find their approach really interesting, and was fortunate enough to be able to interview them (virtually), and with funding and technical assistance from the Bassetti Foundation (part of our agreement explained here), produce a video interview.

To learn more about their work, the artists and their artistic works (including the roots photo above), and to see me in action, watch the video.

The Jevons Paradox

The Paradox

We might like to think that as technology develops we will be able to address all sorts of environmental issues by making our things (machines of all types) more efficient. Cars will run on less or renewable fuel, electricity costs will come down as sustainable solutions are developed, batteries will run our transport systems etc.

There is however a paradox involved, known as the Jevons Paradox, developed in 1865 and since greatly debated and to some extent tested and seen (to some extent I stress).

In 1865, the energy of choice was coal. James Watt had devised a steam engine that was much more efficient that the previous Newcomen design. This new design led to production costs falling as less coal was used in the process, but what had not been foreseen was that coal use would dramatically increase rather than decrease.

The reasons are simple to see. As the materials (energy) become more efficient they become relatively cheaper. An article that required ten kilos of coal to produce now only required six, becoming cheaper to produce and so easier to sell.

The machines producing these goods became cheaper to run, so were used more (and more of them were built). The result was an acceleration in the use of coal, not a decrease.

Further Research into the Paradox

There are also lots of pieces of research that have looked into this paradox in more recent times. In 2005 a report came out (here, quite technical though) that included summaries of lots of this research.

A look at cars is quite instructive. It appears that as fuel efficiency improves, drivers chose to use their cars more. So there is a relationship between improved efficiency and extra miles. If (as some of this research suggests) US citizens travel 20 – 25% more in their cars because the costs are lower, but the car is only 15% more efficient, fuel use will actually go up.

This also effects a broader set of consumption measurements. The more miles we drive the more wear and tear we cause on our cars. The vehicles will have to be replaced quicker. This will also cause more wear to the roads, and on our tyres  and brakes (some studies suggest that 60% of new (efficient) vehicle pollution comes from tyres, brakes and other non-emission sources).

We have written a lot about energy use on the blog, and I have to agree with Christopher in his last post:

We have to use less power, but that might require looking at the problem from a few different view points, and looking into a few dusty corners that we might have overlooked.

Energy efficient production is not the answer without broader political and more widespread change.

Experiments in Culture: Opening up after COVID-19

A view from the COVID-19 Test Concert in Amsterdam, March 2021

A couple of weeks ago Christopher and myself traded comments on one of his posts about the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout, and he touched upon the question of what the post pandemic world might look like.

Going Dutch

This led me to thinking about the Dutch government’s approach to preparing the country for opening up and new forms of lifestyle for the near future, that they say is based on decisions that are founded in scientific research. And they are conducting a series of experiments that I thought our readers might be interested in.  

In order to discover how COVID might spread if life went back to the good old days of conferences, concerts, football matches and festivals, the government is running a series of experimental events:

  • 20 February: Business conference with cabaret show (500 guests)
  • 21 February: Football match NEC-De Graafschap (1500 guests)
  • 28 February: Football match Almere City FC-Cambuur Leeuwarden (1500 guests)
  • 6   March: dance event in Ziggo Dome (1300 guests)
  • 7   March: concert in Ziggo Dome (1300 guests)
  • 13 March: dancefestival (outside) at Walibi Holland (1500 guests)
  • 14 March: popfestival (buiten) at Walibi Holland (1500 guests)

Tickets for the first football matches didn’t sell out, but the rest went like the proverbial hot-cakes. Guests have to have a COVID test before they are allowed in, submit to tests during the event (temperature etc) and have tests after the event. Positive tests result in no admittance.

Bubbles

Inside the venues the visitors are put into bubbles. The dance event (see the photo above) involved dividing the guests into 5 groups of 250 and one group of 50. Each had its own entrance and exit, and all the necessary facilities. Each bubble had its own rules, for example one group of 250 placed in the seated area had to remain seated, while another replica group was allowed to dance in their places. Other bubbles were on the dance floor. In one, guests were asked to keep 1.5 mtrs apart, in another each had their own dance space marked on the floor. Fluorescent Water was distributed (presumably so that guests could see if they had been sneezed on).

Guests were also asked to wear sensors so that their interactions with other guests could be monitored.

What did they investigate?

  • Behaviour (following the rules)
  • Triage, track and trace systems
  • Quick-test (15-minute result tests) as a strategy
  • Air quality
  • Movement dynamics
  • Personal rule effectiveness (1.5 mtr distance)
  • Surface hygiene
  • High risk groups

Those lucky enough to get a ticket heard Sunnery James & Ryan Marciano, Sam Feldt, Lucas & Steve and Lady Bee! 

The dance festival had to be cancelled due to high winds, but preparations are in full swing for the pop festival. There have only been a few words said about any results, but it appears that nobody became infected as a result of the first event, so maybe a model of this sort might be possible, everyone has a test before entering, then follows a protocol as yet to be defined.

As someone who had his honeymoon at Glastonbury Festival in the UK (and went to PinkPop last year), I very much hope and look forward to trying out the new approach, whatever that might be.