Juliet Lee - Week 9 - Nanotech

Wednesday's lecture brought up lots of questions in discussion about what is the role of the artist and the role of the scientist. It is interesting because before this class I had never really considered the question as the basis for any serious debate. But now in this class I see that it is an important question to be addressed, as well as the responsibilities each have towards the general public. It's a fact that artists are making social commentaries on current events that are transpiring these days, but I feel like artists can take it too far. I think that its important for both scientist and artists to respect each field of study, right now in lecture I still favor scientists because it still seems more legitimate, but week after week I gain more information that makes me wonder what it is that I am missing about art that so many other people understand? This weeks topic of nanotechnology was interesting. It sounds like the study of science fiction to make it into fact. I like that this concept has a direct link to art through Buckminster Fuller and the buckminsterfullerenes. Unless it was pointed out directly to me, which it was, science is the product of scientists trying to recreate things that they read about or saw in the movies as youngsters. Art really does play an influencial role in our imaginations that mold our minds into new shapes as we develop. It's really an amazing phenomenon. The guest speaker James Gimzewski gave a very entertaining talk to the class. His comparison of art and science as "rubbish" put science into another perspective for me. It's hard to think of science as something to not be taken seriously. That scientific research papers need to be read and cited in order to be meaningful was another interesting point that Prof. Gimzewski made. I don't think that that is necessarily the case, just because something has not been read does not make it any less meaningful. If in the future someone finally reads the work and it can contribute to someone else's findings then, doesn't that give the paper meaning? If an artist created a beautiful work but did not share it with others then does it also lose its meaning?