As in the historiography of STM, most of the best work in the historiography of art takes the form of case studies -- as our symposium will show. Attempts to generalise across ‘the two cultures’ or to sketch ‘collective’ histories are rare, and they are handicapped by reifications of ‘Art’ and of ‘Science’ as primary analytical categories, rather than co-creations of the nineteenth century. In this Introductory paper I explore the advantages of analysing ‘scientific’ practices as descriptive, analytical, synthetical and hermeneutic, and of using the same categories for the workings of art(s). We may thus hope to clarify the processes of creating & communication in the sciences as well as the corresponding work in the arts, including ‘fine Art’. We may also help clarify some of the relationships across these fields of work, both among ‘professionals’ and with/by ‘amateurs’.

To this end, I will try to frame both science-works and art-works as ‘demonstrative technologies’, at least in part. In STM this adjective may refer to mathematical, experiential or experimental demonstrations, or to technical ‘prototypes’. What then might make related practices ‘artistic’ or particularly expressive? Does this frame help us analyse painting, for example, as variously ‘demonstrative’? And what might be meant when some kinds of recent art were described as ‘experimental’?

By sketching some of these relations, I hope to provide ways of connecting some of the particular lines of enquiry that will be followed and discussed in the rest of this symposium.