The Picturing Climate Network is LIVE!

Written by: Dr. Mark Kasumovic

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, affecting ecosystems, economies, and communities worldwide. As temperatures rise and weather patterns shift, innovative research projects must emerge to combat these challenges. This first blog post in a series introduces the Picturing Climate Network and some of the ways it aims to contribute new research to help communicate climate, climate change, climate science and climate adaptation for the benefit of us all.

A soil sample from a nearby cave is prepared for further lab analysis (Crete, Greece).

Why is a 'Picturing Climate Network' necessary?

Public awareness and risk perception are closely linked to how well people understand the human causes of climate change and potential solutions (Lee et al. 2015). Yet much of climate science remains difficult to access, often communicated through specialist language and complex modelling frameworks that limit broader understanding and, most critically, meaningful engagement (Jasanoff 2010; Edwards 2010). Communication is, of course, only one part of a larger picture. Persistent inaction also stems from entrenched political-economic interests—such as fossil fuel lobbying, growth-driven economic systems, and regulatory inertia—that actively obstruct (Klein 2014; Brulle 2014) or obfuscate (Oreskes & Conway 2010) meaningful action. While the network does not claim that scientific communication is the root cause of climate inaction, it argues that creative, visual communication plays a crucial, and often overlooked, role in shaping how knowledge circulates, how publics are mobilised, and how interdisciplinary collaboration can unfold more richly.

"Both art and science share a deep history of making the unseen visible, interpreting complexity, and extending collective understanding."

Interdisciplinary collaborations between climate scientists and artists offer an under-developed but powerful way to expand participation and reframe abstract, technical concepts in ways that resonate across cultural and cognitive boundaries (Lakoff 2010; Nurmis 2016). While art has historically been used to illustrate or popularise science, embedding artistic practice from the outset of research allows it to act as an epistemic partner—challenging assumptions, generating new questions and enriching the interpretive and emotional dimensions of climate knowledge. Both art and science share a deep history of making the unseen visible, interpreting complexity, and extending collective understanding. In the context of climate change—where data can be obscure, contested, or culturally distant—visual creativity can translate specialised knowledge into accessible, affective forms that sustain engagement and foster inclusive dialogue among researchers, policymakers, and publics.

Addressing the integration gap requires more than producing new visuals: it calls for a fundamental rethinking of climate communication as a co-creative process embedded within research design. Therefore, this initial post introduces some practical strategies—network-building, pilot projects and rigorous evaluation methods—for overcoming communication challenges and barriers. Drawing on my experience as both a visual artist and interdisciplinary researcher, I aim to show how creative collaboration can function not merely as an adjunct to science communication but as a foundational practice for building public understanding, emotional engagement, and collective action towards climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Pilot Projects, Case Studies and Evaluating Success

“Moments of convergence,” as Buller (2009) describes, emerge when collaboration is treated as an active, situated process of assembling knowledge and practice. As Barrett and Bolt (2007) argue, practice-led research generates knowledge that is embodied, intuitive, and context-specific—qualities essential for addressing complex, real-world challenges and positively influencing diverse communities. To foster more such moments, well-documented pilot projects and case studies are needed, offering tangible models to guide others. This requires clear buy-in to the idea that co-creation can lead to more effective climate communication, demonstrably engage communities, and produce positive impacts that can be evidenced. Crucially, creative climate communication must be funded in parallel with climate research for it to be successful, aligning with the “impact” and evaluation agendas of major funders such as REF or Horizon Europe.

        There are multiple pathways for advancing art–science collaborations within the emerging, hybrid field of climate communication, and the most compelling next steps will be those that align creative ambition with clear routes to interdisciplinary funding. While any definitive list will necessarily remain open, the greatest opportunities often emerge where the priorities of scientists, artists, and external stakeholders intersect. For scientists seeking funding for new climate research, embedding even a single high-quality creative dissemination case study—linked to a growing network of like-minded researchers—could help establish a durable culture of interdisciplinarity in a domain where it is urgently required.

        Case studies act as blueprints for best practice, while acknowledging both the individuality and the challenges of each collaboration. Ideally, scientists, artists, curators, and community organisations work from place-based or conceptual concerns that carry shared meaning for all involved. Diversity in team composition, methods, and context is essential, and when combined with thoughtful design, case studies can capture tensions as they emerge while pointing toward evolving best practices. Artists and scientists will not always share the same goals, and differences in priorities, timelines, and epistemologies are common. Ignoring these differences risks undermining the work. Even with strong personal rapport, contrasting modes of practice can create tensions over research focus, narrative framing, and intended audiences. Anticipating such differences allows collaborators to prepare more effectively, document common pitfalls, and provide valuable guidance for others, which is equally as important as recording successes.

        Projects such as The Colour of the Climate Crisis by Kisilu Musya in Kenya, or Sámi artists’ visual responses to Arctic science, or environmental sensing initiatives like Making Sense (Ars Electronica) are not themselves roadmaps for case studies, yet they exemplify how artistic interventions can foreground perspectives historically marginalised in Western scientific discourse. As Gabrys and Yusoff (2012) note, such work can generate new “scales of visibility” and “alternative conceptual paradigms” that expand the cultural and interpretive reach of climate research. Systematically documenting and disseminating such examples within a collective archive would not only guide future projects and strengthen future funding applications as a resource to reference, but also provide embedded evaluation evidence, helping to normalise art–science collaboration as a process that is method-generative as well as communicative.

        Importantly, pilot projects also underscore the practical and economic value that artists bring to interdisciplinary teams. Unlike many research specialists, artists often require minimal infrastructure, working without expensive laboratories or technical equipment, yet contribute meaningfully through their expertise in visual and cultural communication. When embedded from the outset, artists can act as key facilitators of public engagement, cultivating new audiences for both their own work and the broader research initiative. To maximise this impact, pilot projects should set clear expectations for cultural dissemination within research planning, including budget allocations that reflect the essential communicative role of the arts in climate science. By formalising such norms, we not only enhance the effectiveness of interdisciplinary research but also take a critical step toward mainstreaming collaborative models that are both impactful and sustainable.[i] 

"One of the advantages of focusing on the educational components of climate change research (i.e., how and why climates are studied vs. climate change in general) is that the focus is on building climate-related knowledge, vocabularies, and engagement rather than falling into a binary of good vs. bad (or true vs. untrue)."

        Demonstrating the practical and cultural value of these collaborative models, however, depends on thoughtful evaluation, which brings its own set of conceptual and methodological challenges. Although some may argue that assigning educational or evaluative functions to art risks instrumentalising it, this post recognises such functions as complementary rather than reductive. However, one of the greatest challenges in evaluating the effectiveness and impact of collaboration between artists and scientists is collecting and digesting metrics associated with artistic outputs. In terms of audiences, this mirrors the culturally reflective question of what makes ‘good’ art—a question inspiring decades, if not centuries, of debate. Yet, in the focused arena of climate communication, some earlier examples have already offered a few solutions to understand audience reception of climate-related art. For example, if and how audiences engage with climate-related artistic outputs can be investigated via partner relationships, such as including surveys and exit interviews at museums or using participatory observation and feedback forms during community-based installations or public events. Digital exhibitions can be measured via metrics and analytics embedded within websites, alongside interactive components, to better understand whether or not they enhance viewers’ understanding of concepts. Drawing from frameworks in environmental psychology (e.g., Klöckner 2015) or cultural impact assessment (Roosen et al. 2017), these metrics can inform scalable strategies for future interdisciplinary work.

        One of the advantages of focusing on the educational components of climate change research (i.e., how and why climates are studied vs. climate change in general) is that the focus is on building climate-related knowledge, vocabularies, and engagement rather than falling into a binary of good vs. bad (or true vs. untrue). Since it has been shown that understanding how climates function is an excellent predictor of climate awareness and one’s ability to parse the politics of climate change (Lee et al. 2015), the production and evaluation of such knowledge gathering becomes somewhat easier. By that, I mean it is not necessary to determine whether an artwork has shifted a viewer’s stance on climate change (e.g., from climate denier to climate activist), but rather what understanding of how climates function and are studied has been gained from viewing it. Success could then be judged more simply by analysing the knowledge or insights acquired, avoiding the more subjective question of ‘what is good art?’. Again, the reasonable concern amongst artists is that art may be reduced to a didactic function standing only in service to science; however, this argument is flimsy, considering all artworks aim to deliver new knowledge and inspire intellectual debate. In the case of climate-related art, this new knowledge should sometimes focus not only on increasing a viewer’s understanding of the process, implications and predictions of climate research but also on translating the quiet urgency, deep care, and existential curiosity that lie in the heart of why scientists seek to understand the climate. Making art both educational and artistically relevant is, I argue, the great challenge of any visual artist working today.    

        Another essential consideration is evaluating the effectiveness of collaborations, such as: how effective it is to include an artist in science teams (or vice versa)? What value do collaboration and interdisciplinarity bring to answering complex questions? Is communication of climate issues enhanced, and does climate research find new audiences? As mentioned above, these complex questions are well suited to a case study approach. A photographic artist paired with a scientist studying caves and an established museum will likely provide vastly different outputs and engage different audiences than, perhaps, a multimedia artist paired with an Arctic climate systems researcher collaborating with a grassroots/experimental gallery.

        A deceptively simple but essential question to ask at the outset of any case study design may simply be: What is the core purpose of this research? This question can help shape mixed-method evaluation approaches that include qualitative interviews, reflective writing, exhibition analytics, and social impact assessments. Crucially, embedding artists from the beginning allows these evaluation criteria to evolve alongside the research itself. In doing so, evaluation becomes not an afterthought but an integral part of the collaboration, and one that values meaning-making as much as measurement. Importantly, flexibility here refers to adaptive, context-specific application of a rigorously designed mixed-method framework—one that uses systematic protocols to ensure data remains comparable across projects and transferable to future collaborations (again highlighting the need for stronger networks). While evaluating the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations can be challenging—particularly given the range of artistic methods and audiences—this complexity should be seen as a strength rather than a limitation. Just as scientific specialisations are highly individual, so too are artistic practices and the communities they engage. Project partners bring distinct mandates, priorities, and cultural contexts. This diversity reflects the expansive reach and opportunity of creative approaches in addressing climate change’s cultural, emotional, and cognitive dimensions—but only if creativity within climate science is embraced in scale.

        Rather than applying rigid, standardised metrics, flexible, co-designed evaluation frameworks that honour both scientific inquiry and artistic engagement should be adopted. Several models from related disciplines also offer promising templates for evaluating art–science collaborations. For example, Theory of Change (developed initially for social impact work) helps teams map how artistic interventions might lead to long-term social, emotional, or behavioural outcomes. It is particularly effective at identifying the smaller, often-overlooked steps that contribute to broader change. Participatory Action Research (PAR), widely used in education and community development, supports collaborative goal-setting and co-designed evaluation methods, making it especially valuable in community-engaged art projects. Outcome Mapping, meanwhile, is well-suited for interdisciplinary work due to its non-linear approach to change. It acknowledges that progress may be indirect and emergent, rather than following a strict cause-and-effect trajectory. Collectively, these frameworks move beyond narrow, quantitative metrics and allow researchers to track more diffuse but meaningful outcomes, such as shifts in understanding, empathy, or civic engagement.

        Additionally, assessing the effectiveness of artistic interventions requires long-term engagement, as attitudinal or behavioural change often emerges gradually rather than immediately. This underscores the need for longitudinal studies and follow-up evaluation to fully understand the impacts of art–science collaborations, something that project partners are well-suited for, contrasting strict funder timelines and budgets. Finally, clear, flexible evaluation strategies not only serve researchers and artists but also provide stakeholders (e.g., funders, institutions, and policymakers) with evidence of impact. In the context of rising demands for demonstrable public engagement and research “impact” (as defined by REF or Horizon Europe), effective evaluation is not optional—it is central to embedding artistic practice credibly within scientific research cultures.

I hope you have enjoyed this initial entry into the ethos of the Picturing Climate Network. Stay tuned for more posts about the network's philosophy, its approaches to interdisciplinary collaboration, and why we think it is the right time to radically blur the edges between scientific and artistic understandings.

Footnotes

[i] As a personal example, I have stretched the smallest of budgets to produce photo-stories, artists book works and experimental films; thus, firmly believe that even modest sums and costs of participation can be well worth the ‘return on investment’ for research teams in terms of impact. 

FURTHER READING AND REFERENCES

Ars Electronica. (n.d.). Making Sense: Citizen Sensing Toolkit. STARTS Prize. Available from: https://starts-prize.aec.at/en/making-sense-citizen-sensing-toolkit/ [Accessed 08.08.2025].

Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. (2007): Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. London: I.B. Tauris: 1-13.

Buller, H. (2009): The lively process of interdisciplinarity. Area 41(4): 395-403.

Brulle, R. J. (2014): Institutionalising delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

Edwards, P. N. (2010): A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge: p. xix.

Gabrys, Jennifer, and Yusoff, Kathryn (2012): Arts, sciences and climate change: practices and politics at the threshold. Science as Culture 21 (1): 1–24.

Jasanoff, Sheila (2010): A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2-3): 233-253.

Klein, N. (2014): This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Klöckner, Christian A. (2015): What is environmental communication and why is it important? In The psychology of pro-environmental communication, 3–19. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lakoff, George (2010): Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication 4 (1): 70–81.

Lee, Tien Ming, et al. (2015): Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change 5 (11): 1014-1020.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010): Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York.

Nurmis, J. (2016) ‘Visual climate change art 2005–2015: discourse and practice’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7(4), pp. 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.400

Roosen, Liselotte J., Klöckner, Christian A., and Swim, Janet K. (2017): Visual art as a way to communicate climate change: a psychological perspective on climate change–related art. World Art 8 (1): 85-110.