Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

An artist and professor of fluid dynamics explore new perspectives on turbulent flows. We reframe the logic of “going with the flow” within turbulence research as a Capitalist common sense to question its environmental cost. We ask, “what if flows had rights in experiments?”

Paper long abstract

What does it mean to go with the flow? This phrase is used to express openness to drift and transformation: put less energy towards controlling your environment and surrender to currents to see where life takes you.

We are two researchers from the arts and field of fluid dynamics who have come together to explore new perspectives on turbulent flows. Here we offer a new perspective on the teaching that we should “go with the flow” by reflecting on this logic within turbulence research. Researchers rarely let turbulent flows move freely. They try to guide or interfere with the flow. “Passive control” places fixed objects or textures into the flow so that its movement changes without extra energy input. “Active control” adds energy to directly push the flow into a desired state. In both cases, turbulence is adjusted, calmed, or intensified depending on the goal. A successful intervention is defined in terms of efficiency, and the flow becomes a problem of optimization.

Our paper problematises “going with the flow” as a Capitalist common sense to question the environmental cost behind seemingly neutral ideas of efficiency. The study of turbulence is adding to its own problems; its environmental consequences generate further turbulence to study and control. From this critique, we propose a way forwards. Drawing from theories of more-than-human legal personhood, we ask, “what if flows had agency in experiments?” It could open new doors if we ask them what it meant to go with the flow.