.

Curated by Valeria Silvestri

.

5 Questions for… Barbara Agreste

Women, Art, and Science

.

How do you perceive the “human side” of scientific research and knowledge? Do you see it as ethical, emotional, or something else?

It’s precisely the human side—human nature—that is constantly searching for solutions to problems that are always posed from a human point of view. The human side is the capacity to discover, to progress, to understand. It is both emotional and ethical, depending on what human beings have culturally grasped, learned, followed, experienced, verified, or speculated.

I see the human side as a drive toward a kind of knowledge that isn’t solely based on verification, but also on design, hypotheses, and questions that aren’t strictly rational—open instead to broader, intermediate spaces of uncertainty.

.

Art and science can both be seen as a pursuit of truth, even if in different ways. Have you ever reflected on the notion of “truth”? Do you believe there is only one truth, or are there multiple truths?

I find the word “truth” particularly difficult, because I immediately associate it with something absolute. What is true for me may not be true for someone else—so in that sense, truth is very dynamic, constantly evolving. There are as many truths as there are points of view.

The truth of art emerges from a thousand different planes and angles—it is never the same, never fixed, always elusive and multifaceted. It only reflects combinations.

.

In your opinion, how does the truth of art differ from the truth of scientific knowledge?

I don’t believe there’s a real difference between the two. The truth of art lies in the process—in the act of exploring a form, a theme, an appearance. This truth doesn’t require a conclusion or a confirmation; it is never entirely true, though it’s not false either.

Science, though it takes a different approach, does essentially what art does: it searches. And in that search, it always contains the possibility of error. So the knowledge achieved by science is always subject to change and reevaluation. Just like in art, nothing is ever truly “absolute.”

Where art can’t speak or reach, science must respond—and where science can’t provide answers, art must “say” something instead. These truths alternate, and that’s why they must be very similar.

.

If you were to work on a topic related to scientific research, which would you choose, and why?

Thinking about the themes I’ve often focused on in my own work, the one that interests me most is artificial fertilization or insemination. I’m drawn to everything connected to the condition and story of the ovum, because I constantly reflect on the female body and its capacity for regeneration.

.

Do you think that by bringing art closer to science, something is lost or gained in terms of artistic value?

Perhaps by bringing art closer to science—by allowing the boundary between the two practices to thin out—we might even come to define art itself as a kind of science.

Artistic value can indeed be gained, but it depends entirely on how art approaches science.

.

Commentary:

The idea that science should always carry within it the seed of doubt—something that rarely happens today, as science often presents itself with a kind of dogmatic certainty—is, for Barbara, what truly unites the two disciplines. Both are bound by a common spirit of inquiry. And for her, it’s precisely this spirit of research, present in both art and science, that emphasizes the human aspect of science and scientific thought. It’s a perspective that invites deeper reflection.