I gave a PechaKucha presentation (20 images, 20 seconds each) at the New England Museums Association Conference in November, in which I outlined this argument:

Art/Science/Technology (that is, works of art that are created at intersections with science and technology) has a bad reputation, which is sometimes deserved. But there are many artists who, even though they may not define themselves as “working with science and technology,” are doing so, and are making really strong and vibrant works of art. For many artists, working with means that are derived from science and technology is like sketching or sculpting. Therefore, the category of Art/Science/Technology may cease to exist, but we will still find artists whose engagement with fields outside the march of art and its history yields work that speaks eloquently about our time.

The presentation looks at a very few historical precedents in art/science/technology, and at some of my contemporary favorites.

Here are two sets of adjectives that are sometimes used to describe art/science/technology works. From both sets of descriptors, it's clear that the work can lead to glazed, slogging visitors, or to intellectual and aesthetic attack. Slogging and attacks are sometimes merited.