Science and Art through Film

All right, welcome, Sonia. I’m so glad to be with you today. Can you share a little bit about yourself and your work with the audience?

Yeah, of course, happily. Thank you for having me. So I am the curator of science and technology at the Museum of Moving Image. We’re based in Astoria, New York. So for those who haven’t been, I encourage you to come out. And yeah, I’m originally from New York. I came here a lot as a kid. We have… The museum is full of, you know, less so as a like film archive, but more so as a collection of sort of the ephemera or the production elements of the moving image. So we have a lot of old movie cameras, editing equipment, television projectors, and you know, old boxes and things that, you know, evoke sort of the ideally past, present, and future of the moving image.

… which is amazing. We actually, we just finished a book club for teachers over the summer and one of the books chosen was Lights, Camera, Alice.

And the author of that book told us that she actually went to your museum and was inspired by some of the things that she saw there in order to create the work from the book. So I’m excited to kind of dig into your work and how you curate those things. So As the curator, so talk about your job as a curator of this museum

Yes, well, first off, we have a few great curators on staff. I’m one of a few and could never take responsibility for all of the great things that we do. We also have a very robust educational department and I sort of work across departments with the specific focus on science and technology. So that means a few things. So first of all, we have an online publication. There are two online publications that the museum has. One is called Reverse Shot, which is specifically for film criticism, and one is called Sloan Science and Film. and that’s the one that I’m the executive editor of. And as the name indicates, it is an online publication that specifically focuses on that intersection. And we do a large variety of things that includes regularly publishing interviews with scientists, with filmmakers. We have a commissioning series where we ask scientists to review topics in current film and television called peer review. We also have a streaming library of short films. We have an online film catalog, et cetera, et cetera. So that means I do a lot of writing, editing, assigning, chasing people down, promoting, you know, all the things. And then I work some with the education department and, you know, a more teacher focused guide. And then in the museum itself, for those who have been or haven’t been, you’ll find out that the museum is sort of half movie theater and half exhibition space. So we have two movie theaters and I curate a series there that happens every month. called Science on Screen, where I pick a film that has some kind of relationship to science and then I follow that with a conversation, usually between a scientist and a filmmaker, that sort of elucidates or highlights the scientific element in that film. And then in the galleries, you know, as we were talking about, that’s a matter of more long-term sort of research on projects. I have an exhibition opening in October that is going to be a hologram. It’s an artist who worked with an Australian company, a new holographic technology that he sort of hacked and created his own video for, and somewhere between sculpture and zoetrope and, you know, 3D moving image media. So those are all, you know, quite different areas, but the commonality is the kind of science and film intersection.

which is amazing as part of the work that we do as well with STEAM. And so how do you, because you have this unique perspective of

being able to see so many different intersections, how do you see science and art intersecting through film?

Yeah, it’s actually, you know, I think my… Well, my interest is manifold, but if you look at sort of the origins of the moving image, that’s a really nice place that I like to start because, you know, a lot of people think of Muybridge, but his counterpart in Europe was a physiologist who was named Etienne Jules-Marais, who, you know, was one of the pretenders of the movie camera that was really invented to study motion. It was invented to study human physiology. the horse moving, the sequence of the horse in motion, the movie camera, the succession of images, was really an analysis of motion developed by people who were interested in science and the body and all of that. So there’s a lot of examples in terms of the development of cinematic technology that was for scientific studies. So there are these really interesting points in history science kind of spurred the development of actually like moving image technology that you know has continued to be iterated on so You know there’s that long history and now I think people recognize much more sort of the Social impact political impact way that science is kind of integrated in our society and cinema and film being you know a very pervasive things, you know, a great way of grappling with that and bringing that to people’s attention.

Absolutely. And so I’m curious in your role, what are some of the favorite exhibits that you’ve been able to kind of explore either now or in the past? I’d love some examples.

Sure. I had one. that I was a lot of fun to put together that was maybe two years ago, and it was called Twitch Pop Bloom, Science in Action. So yeah, I had some fun with that title. So, you know, even speaking about what we were just talking about, these sort of instances in the history of cinema where cinematic technology has been used to kind of reveal something or show something. something that hasn’t before been seen. This was a selection of nine films that rotated in the course of the exhibition. So the first was called In the Lab and the second was called In the Field. So as you might imagine, some of them were filmed in a lab and some of them were filmed in a field. And it was from 1904 to 1936. So sort of pre-sound, for the most part, cinema. Short films that was So, you know, through a microscope where people really invented their own technology, I had one of syphilis bacteria that, you know, you wouldn’t necessarily know it’s that unless that was part of the framework, but it was actually one of the first indicators of the way that syphilis, that you could diagnose syphilis from a blood sample. Syphilis has a very specific bacteria that has like this wiggling motion. made this film and by showing it to the medical community, that became a visual reference for diagnosing syphilis before the disease progressed. So there was also the first films of wildlife, what has become a big genre, nature, filmmaking, birds chirping. The filmmakers at the time came up with these really crazy ways of filming things because filming wildlife with a really loud, really heavy, hard to move camera. That was the case in the 1920s and 30s. You know, those no small feat. So that was a fun exhibition. I was able to present those films and present a lot of historical sort of contextual material. And yeah, coming up, I have this one opening in October called Dissolution that is really like a sculptural plinth a glass plate that vibrates at 30 frames a second and creates the illusion of, you know, a solid three-dimensional projection. And that’s by an artist named David Levine. And yeah, I’m really looking forward to it. And simultaneously, we’re also redoing our whole core exhibition. And I’m

Oh wow.

part of a team that’s working on that.

So

awesome.

yes, lots for folks to look forward to, I

Yeah,

hope.

absolutely. So what’s

your process? How do you decide because there’s so much material out there, right?

So how do you decide as a curator what to select and what to let go of?

Mostly you’re letting go of things. I mean, I’ll be honest. Like, uh. You know, we have limited space and resources, and I guess the nice thing about my job is that I have sort of various platforms to think about in terms of the way of presenting work. So at the very least, you know, if there’s something that I love, I’ll do an interview about it for the website. If it’s something that’s just a film that doesn’t necessarily need the space of a gallery, then that’s great for the theaters. And you know, what I show in the theaters is not always new work, for work that I might find interesting. I’ve got a big back catalog. And the galleries, I think, is the most challenging part in terms of sort of honing in on something that you really wanna devote years to developing and fundraising for and things like that. And I mean, I’m part of a team, we have those discussions. I think there’s really a sweet spot that we’re always sort of continuing to define Um… you know, some that we can provide enough material or surrounding that someone can, you know, walk in off the street not knowing anything and they can find an entry point to it.

So sometimes, you know, I think the dissolution, the holographic piece I was talking about is a good example in the ways that, you know, that technology itself relates to both like the past and sort of speculative future of what people think of as the moving image. Because if you look there’s a zoetrope and that’s like you know a wheel and a moving screen and there’s ways that this technology really recalls that. So something where we can make a connection ideally through our permanent collection and you know the materials that we have on display to newer work that there’s a bridge there yeah is sort of a sweet spot but I’ll say that together with my colleagues we also put together a film festival every year called First Look, and that’s New York premieres of new international boundary pushing work. And that’s like a great way of showcasing work in a short period of time, but you get to sort of do a lot and bring people together. So I guess to answer your question, it’s always a matter of finding new ways of showing as much work as we can and thinking about audience and a range of audiences and what would be the most appealing.

Okay.

to that kind of range and working with our education department thinking about that as well.

Yeah, I don’t think people realize how much goes into developing a gallery. Like you mentioned that it’s you have to do fundraising and that it can sometimes take years.

And so I think being able to select things that and have that in your mindset. How often I’m just curious, how often

do you change galleries? Or because if it does take years, I mean, how long do we is that process?

Yeah, I mean, as I mentioned right now, we’re working on the core exhibition and that’s gonna be like five plus years of, you know, just, I mean, we’ve had this thought for a long time, but five plus years of just kind of head down development, I think. In terms of our changing exhibition galleries, it’s anywhere, you know, typically we like to have things on for longer than a month. So I’d say maybe three months is more typical. Things, you know, we’ve had exhibitions that are really successful, keep on view for six months. We have some pieces from on loan from Leica right now in our sort of embedded within the permanent exhibition that is an example of stop motion animation and people can come in and make their own little stop motion animations. And we just were able to extend that through September. So, you know, yeah, that’s sort of, there’s a range of lifespans, And each gallery has its own sort of parameters because we have one really big gallery and so that gallery takes longer

because that’s more work to fill. We also exhibit work in our elevators. And,

Okay. Bye!

yeah, and that changes every month or so. So,

Yeah, so there’s a wide range, right?

there’s

So, yeah.

a range, I know, sorry. No concrete answer.

Yeah, well, no, but that’s great because I think sometimes we get stuck into this mindset of, you know, either we have to update, because,

you know, the Instagram culture of, you know, five seconds and somebody’s bored,

or thinking about long term, if this is going to exist for a period of years, what would be significant enough that invites when people come back, they see something new, perhaps

Totally.

that they didn’t see before. So I just, I think that process is fascinating to kind of take a look at. I want to switch gears a little bit because

I know that you’ve created the science and film teachers guide as a framework for kind of selecting short narrative films that examine scientific topics, right? So

what are some of the highlights from that teachers could maybe take away from that guide or even encourage them to pick it up?

Yeah, of course, for sure. So I mentioned that one of the things that I do is I run this online publication that we have, which is called Sloan Science and Film. And that’s a publication which, together with many of the programs that I run, we receive funding for from a foundation called the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which people may have heard on Radiolab or other WNYC shows. But they have a program that’s specifically devoted to public understanding of science. And they do that through many means, of different organizations over 20 plus years. And one of the sort of strongest of those or that which has like a robust sort of pipeline of development is a film program. And so they support student filmmakers at the graduate school level for the most part, making short narrative films that integrate science. And I think what distinguishes those films from a lot of other films is that they’re not documentary, they’re narrative. their fiction, in other words.

So there’s a different kind of appeal, I guess, in terms of storytelling and thinking about filmmaking than documentary films might have. I mean they’re both totally valuable and I love them both but this is a specific focus on narrative and so part of the website’s role is that we catalog all of those short films. And a few years ago, you know, I was just thinking about ways of getting the word out that we have this resource and it’s free and I developed a teacher’s guide that sort of reverse engineers the film so if the students are thinking of a scientific topic and then looking at what they’re doing and reverse engineering it to ground it back in the science. And so what the teacher’s guide does, and it’s available for free online as a PDF, or you can download it or browse it online, is it gives you access, A, to watch all of the films. And so there’s, we have, I think, upwards of 80 films streaming on the site. For the guide, I selected 52. I think I tried to keep it to 50, So yeah, it’s a range of films. They’re each cataloged by scientific topic. I tried to align that with, you know, New York and nationwide science standards. So that was sort of, you know, picking general enough science topics. And then each one has age recommendations. And then it has proposed discussion questions that,

you know, you could watch a film and then, you know, here’s some topics that I think the film brings up. thanks to resources where teachers and or students can learn about the answers to some of those questions or other kind of topics that the film brings up.

Hmm.

So, yeah.

That’s so valuable. And I love that you linked it to standards. I think that’s something that sometimes when we’re developing resources for teachers that doesn’t always happen. So thank you for that because I think it’s so needed. Right.

But also the idea of being able to kind of investigate more narrative films. I think of I just went to go see Appenheimer

over the weekend and I think about it was interesting. I was having a discussion. with a colleague who said, well, you got to be careful with those films because you don’t know if they’re expanding the truth or if they’re twisting the truth. And so I’m sure and there’s validity to that, but also I think it’s interesting that the top, one of the top Google searches over the weekend was, is Oppenheimer a real person

or was the atom bomb real? And I’m like, hello, we need more discussion around science and history.

And if filmmaking can help us to do that, to open up that world, I think it’s so important. And so I love that you’ve brought this as kind of that film guide for teachers who are looking for resources like that.

Yeah, definitely. And I hear you with Oppenheimer. That’s…

Oh yeah, I know. I know, I’m like, wait a minute, is that

Yikes.

really a Google search? So we gotta

do some work here. So that kind of brings me to this debate that is often had in education. between STEM and STEAM. And you’re right there at that intersection because of the way that you are a curator, you have this artistic lens for looking at science. But I’m curious about your take on the debate between STEM and STEAM because sometimes people, especially this is what I hear very often from

folks who advocate for no STEAM that it should be STEM, is that the extra A, the arts dilute. the STEM instruction. So I’d love your perspective on that from what you do and what you see.

Sure. I think I’m sure that you know more about this than me. I don’t want to misrepresent, so…

No, but I love your take. I mean, because it’s interesting as an educator, I can come at

it from one angle, but you’re coming at it from something totally different. So I’d love to hear from that.

You know, I don’t know if this has held true, but when I first heard about that distinction many years ago, my original understanding of it was that the A, that the art terminology was more of a reference to design

than art per se. And I think that those are really different things.

You know, just like, you know. I could see an application of design thinking to science education and science communication. In fact, that is a real thing. I have a good friend who I’m working with right now who is a graphic designer and illustrator who does all science-focused things. That’s great. That has a really broad appeal. and all sorts of things. Design thinking applied to those things? I, you know, I have… no issue with or like that. I feel like that could make a lot of sense depending on the educational setting and sort of what you’re trying to teach. Art as much as science is also like a profession and an industry and has a social and political context that I don’t feel like that word or that acronym is alluding to. trying to say something maybe about creativity, but science as we all know, is a process of creativity, depending on how you go about it. So yes, I don’t know if that exactly answered your question,

No, it does.

but.

It’s interesting because, you know, over the years, you’re right, over the years when STEAM was first kind of distinguished, it was coming out of RISD, out

Right.

of the design element, right? And over the years, it has expanded into all of the arts and the process of the arts themselves. And so it really does depend on where your definition is,

what your understanding of it is, and how they converge, which I think, I mean, just knowing what from the museum itself and what you’re curating. I mean, there’s the process that you’re using with the arts and the selection of it itself. And then the process of connecting science with the art form of filmmaking

can really work beautifully together. And I think it’s a great way to investigate, as you said, entry points for

people who are looking for both of those, right?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I should emphasize that the, you know. While a lot of the things that I explore are sort of scientific topics in film, it’s also a lot like the science of film and filmmaking

and how that fits in the acronym world. I think a lot of times those, it’s interesting as like a jumping off point for a debate, but I think there is a utility to those acronyms and people are using them to signify a certain thing. And I don’t exactly, I wouldn’t assume to know when that’s useful for people and when that’s not, to funding and

Oh, I’m sorry.

Yeah, of course, bye.

But yes, the science of the technology of those things, that also is a really good entry point to then thinking about how to get into actually filmmaking and telling stories and

Absolutely,

absolutely. Yeah, so talking about some barriers, can you share some barriers to filmmaking in the classroom? And then how teachers might be able to overcome some of those things.

Yeah, well, I am not a filmmaker and we have a great education department that is full of people who specialize in that. And one great barrier. breaking activity they could do is bring their students here. Where we have lots

Where

of,

is,

you

yeah!

know, media making workshops and we have a teen council that’s full of teens, you know, that want to become filmmakers that sort of get mentored along the process. In the galleries, we have lots of hands-on activities. You can make your own flip book, you know, stop motion animation, like I mentioned, you can sort of see the process of making films. But I mean, you know, like most things, I think there’s a resource barrier. of a certain kind is obviously expensive. I think phones have, while obviously not accessible to everyone, have definitely democratized that kind of access. But at the same time, it’s like the kind of content that TikTok and a lot of people are seeing, like are those films? I don’t know. They’re

Great.

moving images, but

there’s of course a distinction. you know, between…

Yeah,

Yeah,

and I think,

there’s… I don’t want to…

no,

Go

but

ahead.

I think that’s such a great point to make in that as we’re rapidly evolving with technology, what does count as a film

and what doesn’t and kind of exploring that. I do know that your website is an incredible resource. So I’d love to know how people could find you, could find the museum and how they might be able to stay in touch.

Yeah, of course. Thank you for asking.

Of course!

Um, so the website’s really easy, scienceandfilm.org. It is… open, accessible, everything on it is free. And that’s really the goal. And we just want as many people as possible to understand that it’s a resource that’s out there to support them. And of course, if they have any feedback, I’m very accessible on it. I have like a bio page and there’s a link that you can reach out directly and email me. And the museum has a big, and we platform off of that, has a big social following. enjoy following

It’s

things

on social networks. So, you know, Facebook and Instagram and all the things. And then, you know, our building has a lot of great things as well. And we’re located in Astoria right off the R or the N or the W trains. And it’s a beautiful day here. So

today

and hopefully

in the future.

Yeah, absolutely. Wonderful.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so thank you so much for joining us today, Sonia. It has been so enlightening to hear your position and what you do. I thank you for the work that you’re doing. I think they’re so important for people in order to understand both the science and the art form. So thank you.

Thank you so much.