Annie Wu- Week 9

The development of nanotechnology is without a doubt going to benefit humankind. This science and technology are conducted at such a minute and complex scale that there are so many possibilities for the future. However, also due to its extremely small scale, the implications of nanotechnology are difficult for many to understand and to fully accept. Without visualizations of what is taking place at the molecular and atomic scale, it is hard to believe that nanotechnology can result in so many helpful innovations, that it can actually bring about great changes in the world.

Honestly, before this week’s discussion on nanotechnology, I really had no idea what it was really about. I knew that it was science done at the molecular state, but that was about it. The concept of nanotechnology seems pretty amazing to me now, because of how much we can achieve with it. It seems to be so unthinkable that there is actually the possibility of effectively fighting against cancers, or other diseases, with the developments of nanotechnology. Instead of actually physically having to remove the areas infected with cancerous cells from the body, now there could be a way to directly fight against the cancers, internally. With nanotechnology, cancer treatments would not only be more effective, but they would probably be less painful. Hopefully nanotechnology will reach the point where we can use it in medical treatments without having any doubts of its abilities.

Not only can nanotechnology greatly improve the human’s defense against diseases and other threats to the body, but it can also help improve our environments. They can really be used to “gain greater performance and new capabilities in green technologies,” to clean up the air, water, and soil in our surroundings. Also, with the advancements in nanotechnology, we can be more efficient with our resources. Nanotechnology can help us generate energy, as well as, reduce waste. I feel like we really need these nanotechnology developments, because honestly, humans have really changed the Earth, and it has not necessarily been for the better. The amount of living space is decreasing, as the human populations grow and proliferate. With more and more people becoming “modernized,” more vehicles are used, thus resulting in the mass emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere. Our ozone layer is depleting due to the harmful gases released into the air from human activities, which are also spurring global warming. There is more waste on Earth and we are running out of places to dump it. Basically, we have been polluting and wasting our resources, and we need some way to conserve and to regenerate them. With nanotechnology, we can save and make the most of whatever we have left. Also, we can make the world a cleaner and healthier place to live in, and maybe even contribute to helping out areas of poverty.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif


With nanotechnology, the possibilities for the future are seriously endless. I think it is so interesting how nanotechnology can even affect art. These two areas are so seemingly different that at first, I could not really see how they relate. However, now I realize nanotechnology has the potential to really further art. For example, with claytonics, art will be THAT much closer to representing reality. It would be a closer representation of reality, compared to something like sculpture or a lifelike painting. Also, claytonics requires human interaction, in order to mold and shape things. By having to interact with claytonics, viewers would get a firsthand experience of creating art themselves, thus drawing some kind of reaction from them. And isn’t that what art is all about? Interaction and discovery. From nanotechnology/claytonics, people would truly get a new sense of what art is all about, because it is “synthetic reality.” It seems as though representation and reality are bridged that much closer; because of nanotechnology, people would have another way to perceive the real.

Read more!

Christopher Flannery - Week 8 - Genes

The majority of this week’s discussion focused on Eduardo’s “GFP Bunny” and his thoughts about the artist’s role in altering the genome. As we discussed in section and on the blog, Eduardo is wrong about introducing new species into the biosphere and uses scientific processes that are norms in the scientific community. Despite this, I believe his project succeeded because he forced many people to consider the future of genetically altering animals and humans. A lot of people are aware of genetically altered plants, but a domesticated animal brings the subject closer to home. Eduardo does come off as ignorant to a person more knowledgeable in the scientific field, however he is spreading the awareness of transgenic art.
Eduardo’s vision of a future with artists creating new life forms reminds me of the argument over Steve Kurtz’s rights to do biological experiments in his home. The ability to build genes could be a very dangerous tool and should not be allowed in the hands of any qualified or unsupervised person. The morality of creating life is an even larger topic …
In the past couple of weeks, this class has felt more like a philosophy of science class. Art has a place in this because it is a tool to draw attention to, comment on, and influence progress in both these fields. In the same way, science and philosophy have influenced art and forced it to evolve alongside them.
I got the feeling that no one was listening during the Charles Taylor lecture. His points seemed too unrelated and hard to follow. I was only able to take a few notes and don’t feel that I took too much away from the lecture. At first I thought this was because I am not a south campus major and did not understand his examples, but a majority of the people in the room seemed even less interested.

Read more!

Biotechnology and the like

This week's topics raised my eyebrows and picked my brain. It is a little scary how fast science in progressing, and how much closer we are to things we thought would never exist. Discussion always happens the same way each Wednesday morning: we browse through a few topics, then get stuck on one topic for over half an hour. This Wednesday, section discussed the ethics regarding the production of meat. In fact, the world could progress in this direction. On one side, we have the traditional slaughter houses that raise animals, slaughter them, then distribute their parts. This is the current "humane" way of eating meat. On the other side, we have science and the production of cultured meat (using mice tissue to culture "meat" cells). People may not be ready for that, because it is "unnatural." It is interesting what also comes up as a result of scientific advancement: discussion regarding ethics, new manufacturing laws such as placing stickers that say "unnatural meat" or the like on new products, and an overall stirring of emotions because some people just can't accept this kind of thing.

It's hard for anyone to grasp their own existence, let alone begin to comprehend the fact that 9 billion people live on the earth, and that at our current ages none of our cells are the same as when we were first born yet we are the same person with the same memories and experiences. Life is crazy, and we don't understand it. This brings me to 2 points about this week: 1, the idea of maniplating genes/cells/growth in living systems and 2, the importance of art in scientific discoveries. Mainpulating genes, or the core of any living system, has been debated for a very long time, since even before the first cloned animal. Some people have manipulated genes as an art form, for example Eduardo's GFP Bunny, which serves no purpose but to "glow green." To me, this doesn't seem ethical because to perform experiments on something that is living that won't benefit anyone seems like a stupid thing to do. However, things such as stem cell research are beneficial in certain instances where the living object isn't harmed. Moving on to the second point, it is interesting to note that scientific discoveries and art can feed on each other. Originally, I thought the main link between science and art existed in the idea that science discovers something and then art comes in the visualize it so it can be taught to other human beings. For that is all art is: human expression. But, I learned this week that the opposite is also true, and that makes so much sense too!! I recently watched a documentary on Watson and Crick entitled Life Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093815/). At one point, Watson and Crick, as they race to be the first to discover the structure of DNA, use models of various shapes and size to ultimately discover the shape of the structure, and ultimately explain how it works. They did this through the use of models! To me, that's artistic because someone had to design these models, and design = art.

I was browing popular science today and decided to check out the new section on biotechnology and stumbled upon a very crazy article that somewhat related to class, especially in regard to cultured meat. We have been genetically modifying plants for some time now because arguably they don't have a consciousness. People accept this. In fact, this article, found here: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/5a4d4c3ee4d05010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/4.html, stresses the biotechnology might be the only way to save BANANAS!! Everyone loves bananas, but they are seedless. So what they are doing is culturing some 1,200 strains or so of bananas in test tubes in laboratories in attempt to save them. Science may have to come through in the clutch because we surely do not want to lose bananas.

P.S. Sorry I didn't submit this Sunday, I forgot because of the 4 day weekend because my mind was under the mentality of "the last day of the weekend" which would be today, Monday. I hope that's not a problem!

Read more!

Juliet Lee – Week 8 – Biotechnology, Human Genome etc.

This week I happened upon an art reception at the Kerckhoff art gallery, it was called the “Art Science Fair” presented by the UCLA Neuroscience Undergraduate Society. The show had around 30 pieces and for the most part was drawings, paintings and sculptures, but they were all done by non-art, science majors. I enjoyed the show because it had nothing to do with science (besides one piece that was a water color of a neuron) except for the fact of their majors. And I also liked the show because I was able to vote for my favorite pieces and received free food in return.
Another interesting thing that I found this time online, was the development of a 4-D model of the human body called the CAVEman. It is supposedly going to help teach medical students and to aid in the preparation of more complicated surgeries. I thought that this related to other topics that we had touched upon in class; like the clip Professor Vesna mentioned and showed on YouTube of the section of the human body in a 3-D model. This new 4-D digital human image uses time as its 4th dimension so that the progression of an illness can be better tracked and shown in relation to the rest of the body. It has taken six years to develop and was a combined effort of computer scientists, biologists, mathematicians, and artists to make a high resolution image of the human body. I think that this is a great example of how collaborative projects between scientists and artists can be very successful. It is also like our guest speaker Charles Taylor’s point about how science needs art to put into images abstract concepts that allow better understanding for other people to learn about difficult subject matter.
About the questions posed at the end of Tuesday’s lecture, I do not think that there is a limit to human creativity. Everyday I witness someone doing something either artistically or just in everyday life that I am simply amazed that someone could have thought to do such a thing. If there is any kind of limit it is only our social and cultural constructs that keep people within a boundary of acceptable art. I do believe that life is an expressive medium, artists and scientists have always been trying to gain a better understanding of the world around us and how it works.

Read more!

Monica Tse - wk.8 - Chris O'leary - transgenic art

Using art, in terms of illustration, in science never really struck my mind before, but looking at its role in how science is studied and portrayed as well as hearing Charles Taylor speak about their relationship, I am further convinced of the intertwined relationship that they have. Not only does art make scientific ideas and issues known to the public, but it also can aid in scientific discoveries. !!!

For example, the four levels of geometry of proteins – primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. Without a visualization of how coils and pleated sheets may line up and twist with one another, scientists might not have fully understood how proteins interact with one another based on their orientation. It is interesting how visualizations can have such an important role in scientific endeavors. Without them, we would miss out on a lot of discoveries.

Another key role that art plays a role in and is extremely effective in is making scientific issues more aware to the public. Professor Vesna’s work very successfully does this. In her water bowl installation, by stimulating the senses and being interactive, it portrays the status of our environment. For example the water bowl in which every time someone touches the water, an image of replicating bacteria appears. This, more than a ten-page evidence paper on how our actions are affecting the environment, is effective in showing us how our actions affect pollution and how our society impacts the environment. I think that the visual has so much more impact on how we view our role in the environment and helps us understand better the severity of impact that we exert.

I also wanted to comment on the implications of biotechnological art and its role in the sciences. This type of art raises ethical questions of what type of boundaries should exist. If an artist’s goal of biotech art is to make the public more aware of an issue or to critique a new venue in the scientific field, boundaries can be less stringent; it is true that when one presents a work under the title of “artist”, there is greater leniency for what is considered ethical or non-ethical. However, if the goal of biotech art is to actually contribute to the science field, I’m not sure how far it can stretch the boundaries of scientific experimentation. Because this enters the realm of scientific research, certain rules need to be obeyed in order for a work to be considered serious and valid.

Considering Eduardo’s GFP bunny, for example, I see his efforts as stretching the boundaries a bit too far mainly because he endeavored his creations for scientific gain. He truly thought that by creating a ‘new species’ of bunny, he was contributing scientifically. He said, “in a world in which species go extinct everyday, artists can contribute by creating new ones”. It is dangerous for artists to have this mentality, not completely understanding the complexities of introducing a new species. In the scientific world, the introduction of a new species can have dire consequences, even to the point of extinguishing other species. Many factors must be considered before a new species can be introduced into the wild, and the meticulous thought process that goes into understanding how a species will impact the environment is set in seems to be on opposite ends from the lightness with which Eduardo seems to regard releasing a new species. His view that science can simply be created and released does not go well with the more thoroughly thought out scientific process used when science employs change.!!!

Read more!

Michael Nguyen - 8 - The price of new genes

As a student of molecular biology and genetics, I never considered the possibility of using the science within an art context. With the widespread popularity of organic products, there seems to be a backlash against genetically modified food and organisms. The art I’ve seen that deals with GMO is critical and seems to warn the public of its dangers. Technological advances have allowed crops to grow in harsh environments and probably provided food for people who would’ve other wise starved. Insulin produced in transfected E. coli allow millions to live with diabetes. However, I am aware of the concern about the issue of at what cost do we have these new life forms. I’m not as concerned about the potential health affects as the fact that corporation control the rights to these organisms and often have the bottom line as the main concern. In that sense I am receptive to art which brings this potential issue to light. It’s not the technology itself that we must be concerned about, but those who control it.

In Eduardo Kac’s article, he says “I suggest that artists can contribute to increase global biodiversity by inventing new life forms.” I’m not sure if he’s entirely serious because speciation isn’t as simple as inserting a single gene. A dog with a fluorescent coat is not a new species and doesn’t contribute to solving the problem of species extinction and loss of biodiversity. The principle of adaptation and evolution hinges on some sort of reproductive advantage; I’m not sure of female dogs fancy fluorescent fur or not. Whether misinformed or overzealous, I don’t think Kac’s idea is a particularly good one. It’s a better idea to work on reducing pollution and destruction of natural habitats than trying to generate new life forms.

One interesting thing I discovered was that the Simpson’s influence on molecular biology. In an episode, Homer makes a hybrid plan of tobacco and tomatoes: Tomacco. This fruit (vegetable?) ends up having an addictive effect because of the nicotine. This inspired someone to actually graft the two plants together; tomatoes were produced which had detectable amounts of nicotine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomacco

Read more!

Week 8- Duy Phung- Biotechnology and Arts

“When a species…produces a poisonous substance, it may well kill itself. If, however, the poison is more deadly to its competitors it may manage to survive and in time both adapt to its own toxicity and produce even more lethal forms of pollutant.”
-James Lovelock, Gaia

In 1979, the mathematician James Lovelock published a book, Gaia that delved deeply into two naturally profound questions: how can the individual components that constitute life coordinate their efforts and what can be said of species that threaten that equilibrium. He argued that Earth was a single, planet-sized organism, which he named Gaia after an ancient Greek goddess. Obviously the second question was more immediately relevant to us as this week lecture yet again raised another controversy: transgenic art. Should there be restriction for artists, who are using biotechnology as medium in their work? And if applied, would restriction hinder their creativity that is vital for any artist?
We all may know that Watson and Crick are scientists who discovered the structure of DNA and opened a new era for science in general and biotechnology and chemistry in particular. They did not discover the DNA structure but rather synthesized hypotheses from other scientists’ works to propose the double helix model. The information they used includes: R. Franklin DNA fibers X-ray diffraction data, keto conformation of nitrogenous bases, Chargaff’s rules (G+A)/(C+T) =G/C =A/T =1 for bases, density measurements, and C2’ endo conformation of sugar. Likewise Eduardo Kac was the first scientist who used a GPF (Green Fluorescent Protein) from a type of jellyfish to inject into a rabbit to make it glow green a specific blue light. His work, however, raised ethical questions concerning animal respect in lab. Other people wondered where the boundary of this transgenic art is.
Transgenic artists use biotechnology such as genetic engineering and cloning to create their works. Although the artists claimed this practice art would eventually bring the arts and sciences closer, since living organisms are the medium and the works are produced in laboratories, transgenic art is subject to such questions like in Eduardo Kac’s case. We all agree with Kac’s argument that genetically modified plants such as soybeans, potatoes, etc… would be useful in term of providing abundant food and cheap qualified proteins. He continued to argue that biotechnology is making tremendous positive changes and seems to be very promising in treating incurable diseases. Finally he predicted in the future “we will be transgenic”.
Eduardo Kac was also the first person to have a microchip implanted in his the lower part of his leg in 1997 to ask us to think seriously about this type of art. Therefore the question is when it comes to experiment in living organisms, would we simply accept it as a type of medium? To me there should be more restrictions on transgenic arts. Art is about artists’ creativity with intention to stimulate the human senses, thus bringing happiness for human mind. Although the green bunny was successful in stimulating human senses, the experiment/work is simply wrong in term of ethics. We should judge actions right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. The rabbit in this work were obviously being caused somewhat negative suffering. We don’t know what happened to its lifespan afterward and any discomfort and disease it had to bear because of this experiment. Was there any compensating gain in happiness elsewhere that justified it? Was greater unhappiness being prevented, for other animals or for human? To most of us, the answers were no. We all felt sorry for the rabbit. The work was not morally acceptable. Therefore, transgenic art should be limited when dealing with living forms.
To close this week’s blog, I’d like to introduce a break-through that I consider as art in science, but this work was involved with only physicists. In October last year, a team led by scientists at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering has demonstrated the first working "invisibility cloak." The cloak deflects microwave beams so they flow around a "hidden" object inside with little distortion, making it appear almost as if nothing were there at all. Although far from perfect--the ring-shaped cloak is invisible only when viewed in microwaves of a certain wavelength traveling parallel to the plane of the ring--the device could usher in a potentially revolutionary approach to manipulating electromagnetic waves. In this case the work successes in stimulating human sense and happiness, so it’s totally art. Just imagine one day in the future, you could really try this invisible cloak. It’s really cool, isn’t it?

Read more!

Alexander Yeh; week 8; Transgenic Art and Science

One of the important differences between art and science is that science always has some sort of practical application that the science is expected to contribute to. Art on the other hand is not conceived with any clear purpose. It can explore what has not been explored before, but the probability of success is much lower than with science with clear purpose. Thus, when dealing with issues of life including bioengineering and transgenetics, art should be held to a much stricter standard as to what should be explored. In the cases of stelarc and Orlan, the modification to a living body was contained to the artists own body. So if an artist would like to explore transgenic art, why should not the artist be limited to the artist’s own body as the canvas?

In the case of the GFP bunny, Eduardo Kac altered the genes of the rabbit which code its existence. Although it was somehow predictable that the result would be a glowing bunny, the cost of what could potentially go wrong was too high. When performing any alteration to DNA, the potential benefit to society must outweigh the potential cost. Clearly, it was no so in the case of the bunny.

The single purpose of art is to explore. Science has already advanced to the point where creating an animal that synthesizes jelly fish protein is no big deal. Already, this has already been applied to many organisms. Most people are aware of this, so the only question left is why anyone would want to create a bunny that synthesizes jelly fish DNA. It has no contribution to the scientific community and has little contribution to the artistic community since the topic has already been explored by the scientific community. So Kac’s GFP bunny really does not have any place.

Many times, artists do not have the scientific background to realize the scientific implications of the art that they create using biotechnology. Artists must consult with scientists and not perform transgenic art without exploring the dangers of what could happen. In the case of Eduardo Kac, after using the scientists to create the GFP bunny, he should have also listened to the scientists in not exposing the bunny to the outside world. Letting the animal go out into the wild may have had unforeseen effects upon natural species. Anyone with any sort of scientific background would realize that although the potential for danger of releasing the bunny is small, why is that a risk that should even be taken?

In the article found at http://www.jstor.org/view/0024094x/ap050117/05a00090/0 , the author explores art that creates transgenic digital creatures in digital worlds and art that uses DNA as a sort of tablet for encryption. In these forms, the artist is able to communicate the potentials of biotechnology and raise awareness of the issues surrounding transgenics without any of the damage or dangers of creating mutant creatures. I believe that these pieces are just as effective as the GFP bunny in exposing the public to the potentials of transgenics, although the bunny may have been more effective in creating controversy.

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 8-ROBOTS ARE NOT OKAY!!!

Due to the fact that we spoke about so many revolutionary discoveries and inventions this week (and I have to admit that I am thinking mostly about the discovery of Watson and Crick, considering that I have studied them many, many times prior to this week), I want to mention how desensitized we have all become to such advances. I mean, I feel like I hear about such things on the news all the time these days. Whether they are actually occurring, or even if they are merely being mentioned, they seem to be invading our televisions and newspapers constantly. I wonder how many of these things that we are told are truly revolutionary will (1) be treated with the same respect and weight Watson and Crick’s discovery and (2) hold up in time like so many of the things we have learned about this week. This all makes me wonder what it would have been like to grow up in an age when technological innovation was not nearly so ubiquitous. I feel like it would be a more exciting time in which to be raised. I cannot even fathom how amazing it would have been to see the moon landing in 1969, and now we learn about people who create bionic arm art exhibits and grow third ears in class on a bi-weekly basis. I don’t even know how impressed I would be if we were to someday land on Mars. How sad.

I don’t know about you guys, but I always wonder what it would be like if a person from around 1900 were to see one of those super-long buses here in LA, or something equally futuristic looking.

This is one of those things that makes me that we just know too much:

http://www.limblengthening.com/news/reccforpincare.html

I am a big fan of plastic surgery, and yet somehow this just seems like too much. Hmm… now that I consider my affinity for plastic surgery, it might be wrong for me to think limb lengthening is just wrong. It might be. I don’t know.

Okay- now for reals: THIS is not okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682284.ece

Frankly, growing skin over robotic limbs downright scares me. Remember Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Well, not even Luke Skywalker gets skin. He has to make due with a leather glove. And he is from a galaxy far, far away. Hmm… maybe because he’s from a long, long time ago… That MUST be it, because there is seriously no way that we should have the ability to do anything they weren’t able to do in Star Wars. That, I am SURE, is not okay… at least with me. I suppose I’m not okay with a lot of scientific things, though. It’s mainly just robots.

On the subject of robots, robots are not cool. Robots will become FAR too complex FAR too quickly, and people will all too quickly start arguing for robot rights. UGH! Robots will NEVER deserve rights, no matter how much their inner processes may resemble human feeling. And this reminds me of our discussion of Eliza and Agent Ruby and networked consciousness. It’s all just wrong to me. Just wrong. So, basically, what I’m saying is: don’t support robots. They will be given TOO much credit, and might just take over the world. SO BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 8-ROBOTS AE NOT OKAY!!!

Due to the fact that we spoke about so many revolutionary discoveries and inventions this week (and I have to admit that I am thinking mostly about the discovery of Watson and Crick, considering that I have studied them many, many times prior to this week), I want to mention how desensitized we have all become to such advances. I mean, I feel like I hear about such things on the news all the time these days. Whether they are actually occurring, or even if they are merely being mentioned, they seem to be invading our televisions and newspapers constantly. I wonder how many of these things that we are told are truly revolutionary will (1) be treated with the same respect and weight Watson and Crick’s discovery and (2) hold up in time like so many of the things we have learned about this week. This all makes me wonder what it would have been like to grow up in an age when technological innovation was not nearly so ubiquitous. I feel like it would be a more exciting time in which to be raised. I cannot even fathom how amazing it would have been to see the moon landing in 1969, and now we learn about people who create bionic arm art exhibits and grow third ears in class on a bi-weekly basis. I don’t even know how impressed I would be if we were to someday land on Mars. How sad.

I don’t know about you guys, but I always wonder what it would be like if a person from around 1900 were to see one of those super-long buses here in LA, or something equally futuristic looking.

This is one of those things that makes me that we just know too much:

http://www.limblengthening.com/news/reccforpincare.html

I am a big fan of plastic surgery, and yet somehow this just seems like too much. Hmm… now that I consider my affinity for plastic surgery, it might be wrong for me to think limb lengthening is just wrong. It might be. I don’t know.

Okay- now for reals: THIS is not okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682284.ece

Frankly, growing skin over robotic limbs downright scares me. Remember Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Well, not even Luke Skywalker gets skin. He has to make due with a leather glove. And he is from a galaxy far, far away. Hmm… maybe because he’s from a long, long time ago… That MUST be it, because there is seriously no way that we should have the ability to do anything they weren’t able to do in Star Wars. That, I am SURE, is not okay… at least with me. I suppose I’m not okay with a lot of scientific things, though. It’s mainly just robots.

On the subject of robots, robots are not cool. Robots will become FAR too complex FAR too quickly, and people will all too quickly start arguing for robot rights. UGH! Robots will NEVER deserve rights, no matter how much their inner processes may resemble human feeling. And this reminds me of our discussion of Eliza and Agent Ruby and networked consciousness. It’s all just wrong to me. Just wrong. So, basically, what I’m saying is: don’t support robots. They will be given TOO much credit, and might just take over the world. SO BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read more!

Allen Wang Week 8 - Gene Therapy?

With advancement in science, we are given the illusion that we are almost invincible. If we lose a heart, no matter, we can grow another one. If we catch some strange disease, no matter, we can most likey find a cure. But, with the limitations of research and the controversy of stem cell research, out biotechnology is limited for the time being.
If we did live in a world where biotechnology was free to explore its boundaries, it would probably be like a world of Jurassic Park. With its ability to clone and explore science freely, nature would eventually take its course and probably end up destroying everything in its path. Because man believes that it can control nature and anything else that it holds, man becomes too ambitious and eventually creates something out of its control and becomes destroyed by its creation. The dinosaurs, resurrected by man, cannot be contained because of the chaos theory, and therefore the dinasaurs break through the chains and locks and emerge to search and destroy the lives of humans in search for food.
We are not ever able to contain nature for nature is chaotic. Even in an contained enviroment, we must expect the unexpected in order to survive. The book and the movie versions of Jurassic Park has shown that even though the enviroment was well contained, with unpredictable variables and expectations, such as the backstabbing Nerdy and the storm that passes through the island, the elements can combine to devestation effects. The outcomes were the destruction of the lives of humans, dinosaurs, and as well as Jurassic Park itself. Because of the destroyed containment field of Jurassic Park, the animals, which were once contained, were released into human populations, though never to be found ever again.
Jsut because we can advance greatly in biological technology, we shouldn't because we might reach the point where we as humans cannot control the power that we discover. Though we should still advance, we need to act cautiously and realize that we are not the all powerful beings that we believe ourselves to be.

Read more!

Week 8, Biotechnology in Art - Michelle Baba

"Biotechnology in Art"

Edwardo Kac, an American artist from Chicago, created a transgenic rabbit injected with green fluorescent protein in April of 2000 as a part of his art enstallment called "GFP Bunny." Named Alba, the albino rabbit glows bright lime green when exposed to certain blue light due to the genes it contains of the Pacific Northwest jellyfish species. (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml) Edwardo Kac believes that he is contributing to science with his art exhibit, however, I feel that Alba raises many new (ethical) issues... can biotechnology be considered as still being art? Kac wants the public to believe that by integrating the first transgenic animal into society, he is pioneering the bioengineering world, however, I feel that he has lost all sight of the true scientific meaning behing the project. By using Alba as a work of art, he is showing his creation off not because of what it can mean for the future of genetic research, but because of how it looks. In a way, Kac reminds me of Steve Kurtz - a political activist/interactive artist who also turned to science yet seemed to fail to completely understand (and more importantly, respect) the seriousness of the scientific experiments that he was conducting. Kurtz seemed to find it to be amusing to release bacteria into the air of London - likewise, Kac seemed to think that a green bunny would be interesting to show off in a traveling exhibit. All in all, I feel that contemporary artists are constantly seeking ways to transcend the barriers between C.P. Snow's "two cultures" (art and science) however lose sight of the the ethics and serious mindset that should be maintained while conducting such projects. In a way, creating a green bunny to put on display is insulting to the science world. Is it a new creation? Yes. However, is it an accurate representation of what we have accomplished with years of genetic research? Most definitely not.

Read more!

Eddison Lai- Week 8-Animal Testing and Limiting Creativity

This week, we questioned if animal testing was morally acceptable. It seemed like half the class was against animal testing and the other was indifferent. I don’t think many people were in support of it because most people feel some sympathy for experimental animals. Society has a way of implanting the same morals into its inhabitants. !!! There were many different examples of immoral testing. There was dolly, the first ever cloned animal, Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny, and hundreds of thousands of lab rats tested through out the years of scientific experimentation.
Experimentation on humans is inhumane because humans are thought to have a choice and a free will. Animals on the other hand, cannot speak up for themselves, so they are taken advantage of often. People feel like they need to take a stand for these creatures. But if they say that we cannot experiment on animals because they're living beings, wouldn't it be same if we experimented on plants, insects, and the earth itself? In a sense we are taking the planet's life slowly as we live on aren't we?
To me, animal testing is wrong but we need a type of life form to test on. If we didn’t have a live being to test on, we can’t find cures and treatments for the diseases that plague our society. Many students in class mentioned that scientists should experiment on humans instead of rats. The reason I think scientists use rats is because its economically profitable. Rats are small, so they do not take up a lot of space. They do not consume much food so it is cheap to test on them as opposed to bigger animals.
I believe that medical and scientific experimentation is acceptable because it is for the good of human kind. This seems selfish for taking another species life, but its much more humane than the cosmetic companies who experiment on animals for their products and the artists who experiment on animals for their own selfish reasons.
So are we really limiting creativity? In a sense, I believe we are. We put a cap on how far artists can go to mutate their specimens. However, we still allow scientists to use lab rats for experimentation. Animal testing as a medium of creativity has yet to be accepted by the majority of society. Whose side am I on? I haven't fully decided yet.

Against Animal Testing
http://www.massanimalrights.org/producttesting.html

Regarding Support of Animal Testing
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-02-euroanimals_N.htm!!!

Read more!

--- Week 8 --- John Matt Ko --- Section 2 ---

This week we went over transgenic art and what it implies for society. Transgenic art is what Eduardo Kac calls his projects. The basic idea behind it is the creation of hybrids, though not in the typical manner of crating hybrids. Prior to the great advances in medicine and technology we have today, hybrids were made primarily among plants, and other times among dogs and cats. Hybrid plants are made by grafting different stalks onto each other and on the basis of dominant and recessive traits, things such as seedless lemons and oranges are made. In dog and cats, hybrids are made through the process of interbreeding. Essentially, any non pure-bred dog or cat is a hybrid. However, now that technology has come as far as it has, hybrids can be made straight at the root, the genome. Things that normally couldn’t be made, like hybrids between different animals or humans and animals, can be made. While these hybrids aren’t usually the kind of half-horse half-man you might think, the implications are pretty scary. It may even be possible to create things like centaurs and chimeras someday.

I for one, am not totally against what Kac is doing. Creating a green rabbit using GFP is a great advancement for science. It signifies the fact that we are now able to read the genome, and are on our way to fully mapping the human genome. And the concept isn’t foreign to me either. I had already heard of green mice from my friend in a Life Science class. However, deciding to call it art is the point at which I disagree with Kac. It’s a science experiment and that’s it. Perhaps there is beauty and creative expression in using the advances of science to create something new, but this happens in labs all over the world all the time, but none of these people call it art. To them it is their research, career, or even life’s work. To call Kac an artist would be to call these scientists artists as well. But to these people, this is work to advance science, not to express themselves artistically. So I don’t quite understand how Kac has the freedom to call himself an artist when he does exactly what scientists do.

Another thing we discussed in discussion was the development of actually growing cells into steaks, so that we don’t have to kill animals anymore. This I also feel isn’t art, though I would say it is closer to being art than Kac’s rabbit. I have somewhat of a problem though with doing this in the first place. Mainly because you don’t know about it’s consciousness as a living object. We can’t know that it doesn’t feel pain when you kill it, and if it does, it would be just as cruel as killing any other animal. I don’t have any problem with it myself, but if the issue is the animal cruelty, the problem I think is still there.

Read more!

Kelly Banh- Beef and... ART?

All this talk about plantimals is a bit disturbing. Combining the genetics of different kingdoms to produce crazy hybrids- I’m not too sure I would approve. I’m going to hold off on my opinions about interbreeding organisms with a brain or consciousness and discuss the mixing of an apple and a steak (which really turned out to be an internet hoax. go figure… but then again, is this really far off?). Then, I’ll attempt to link this to art.
Presenting the “applesteak,” a “New fruit's taste/texture said to be indistinguishable from an apple, but with the genetics and nutrition of beef.” The fake article was created by Ward Nicholson, highlighting the potential dangers of such a creation, the competition the “applesteak” would create for the beef market, the disputes between vegetarians and animal rights groups that would arise, and ultimately, who gets to decide genes and food choices. As a side note, the article also touched on Brave New World as Professor Taylor mentioned during his guest lecture.
The article was commented about on beyondveg.com, where this blurb was also found: “Too bad wiser heads prevailed upon the author to label this as the spoof it actually is. Just imagine the hue and cry that could have resulted had this been let loose somewhere else on the Internet as real. Think of the chain postings on email diet listgroups netwide, the barrage of protest letters to biotech firms and Congress--the panic, the fear, the mayhem! Coulda, woulda, SHOULDA. Read it and weep.” Sure it was a scam, but to Nicholson, it was an expression, and possibly very well categorized as written artwork.
During discussion, we were presented with the video of meat cultured in a lab. Ward Nicholson’s article is not much different from that video. If we are able to culture meat in a lab, then perhaps with more research and experimenting, beef could grow on trees? What’s more important? The economic efficiency of such a product? The benefits of eating an apple with the nutrition of beef minus the harmful fats? Not killing cows for food? These are the types of questions that arise from exposure to focus on videos and articles like that of the lab-cultured meat and fake article of Ward Nicholson. Just as Orlan experimented with cosmetic reconstruction, the purpose of art is believed to evoke emotions and opinions on issues like man-made beef and unnecessary surgery.
So what of this man-made cow meat? It was an extremely difficult topic for the class. One of the things that was mentioned was that it would provide vegetarians with an alternative to eating “meat” without killing an actual animal. Personally, I wouldn’t support this. Vegetarianism is a choice, and if you are going to stand by the beliefs of true vegetarianism, then there shouldn’t be any loopholes. If people have been doing it for years without the aid of biotechnology, then it should be continued in such a manner. Many of my family members are religious vegetarians, and they have been perfectly content with the natural resources that they have been given. No need for imitation beef products and shrimp-looking tofu. That’s just… weird. An article like Ward Nicholson just shows how absurd it would be. Internet hoax… maybe. Or maybe artistic expression.

Read more!

Week 8 - Daniel Baker - Ethics and More

We have studied art that modifies the body from the outside in, now the focus turns to art that modifies from the inside out. This appears to be the section where the level and of science is surpassing the amount of “art” in the projects. Possibly, it is because biotechnology a hot topic in today’s society. Perhaps it is because the process of creating the art is actually creating new life, but this subject of genetic mutation for artistic appreciation prompts plenty of discussion, specifically on ethical terms. Take one of Eduard Kac’s other pieces, “Specimen of Secrecy about Marvelous Discoveries.” The piece is basically living organisms on display, like a zoo but in an art gallery. The project evolves and changes based upon changes in its environment, meaning guests walking past could transform its evolutionary path. This has a direct link to generative art, for in both, the artist sets up the scenario and lets the art to evolve and create itself. Here however, it is life that is evolving, not just a computer program or the ways in which a robot moves about a canvas.

As time and more experiments proceed, it becomes harder to distinguish where the separation between “art projects” and “science projects” lies. Take the “GFP Bunny” for example. It is clearly a breakthrough in science, but also is a breakthrough in art as well. It challenges the norms in both, successfully bringing up new questions in both the art realm and the science realm. What therefore makes the GFP Bunny into an artwork? Is it only art because an artist makes it? It was in fact, a collaboration between scientists and artists, therefore I would say it would lie under the categories of both. The only non-scientific part of the project was the fact that the artist wanted to take his work home with him afterwards, something that would be deemed unacceptable in the scientific world.

This leads us to question what ethical rules must be laid down in order to protect the art from the artist, for dealing with living creatures for art projects is quite different than using inanimate objects for art. What is even a tougher question that what these rules are, is the question of who has the right to make these rules? The government? The artist? The viewer? It is a large problem that I am not sure even where to begin to start solving it. For the realm of science, the government has already begun to take precautions to protect individuals’ rights over then genetics, as well as the recent debates about stem-cell research. But how would the government go about protecting against art? So far, the artists have not done many things that are that different from what scientists are doing, so the rules that apply to science have also fit into the realm of art. But what comes next? Will scientists claim themselves to be artists to create experiments that are not restricted by the government? After all, artists are supposed to express their opinion through their pieces, so who will have the nerve to tell them they must limit their artistic creativity?

Read more!

jose fernandez, week 8, flourescent stick

Currently in display in the LACMA museum is an exhibition by Dan Flavin, a minimalist artist. The name of his exhibition is called a retrospective. I first noticed the advertisement a few weeks ago when I was on my way home. The art piece on display outside was a photograph of a long and thin yellow fluorescent light against a white wall. Well, at first I tried connecting this piece to the topic of the class but was not able to do so at the moment. When I got home I began to think about it a bit more.
Anyone that knows about star wars, which might be the entire world’s population, would quickly think about light savers at first glance. It really looks just like a light saver. Anyways, trying to connect it to art and science was quite difficult. I am not someone that really analyses artwork in search of meaning. I was almost forced to think about this piece though because it just would not leave my mind. Then I remembered that interpreting art has no right or wrong answers. So I began to think about it and actually came up with, what I thought, was an interesting connection.
The best interpretation I though of was the Sun. Although the sun is not actually yellow, it is the light source to Earth. First of all, light is life. Without light the Earth would have never existed. The Sun, which is a star, was required for the formation of the Solar System. So I guess I’m relating this image to the section on the universe, which is still left to be covered. The Big Bang was though to be the initiation of the universe and that was a large explosion of light that created everything that is now the universe. So the fluorescent stick can represent the Sun and life with its strong illumination. Say that this stick is alone in a dark room. The moment that the electric current runs thought the glass at the speed c, the lightless environment will become illuminated. It is giving life to a place where nothing can be seen by the eye alone. The instant the room becomes lit, it suddenly has life. Everything in the room will become visible. It’s like night and day for the Earth. At night everyone is sleeping, pretending to be dead. As soon as the Sun takes a peak at the sleeping world the dead revive with a jolt of life. It allows us to see everything
This example can be seen in the image of the galaxy that in on the webpage. The surroundings are dark but the luminescence of the stars give off enough light to create a halo around the constellation. Gather up billions of fluorescent sticks and you have a large light source enough to have a similar impact on a smaller scale.
Yet we all know that the Sun will one day die out. This is the same case for the light stick. It may burn for a long time but in the end it will cause the previously dark room to go dark again. It also represents the end. It can only burn for so long until it reaches the stage where it can no longer burn and loses its power, its life.
There are many ways in which the image of a yellow, or any color, fluorescent stick can be interpreted. I found my interpretation the moment I saw the sun glaring through my bedroom window. Like it was said earlier, light represents life. The bright day is alive while the dark night is dormant. The Sun is the only light source that can illuminate the entire planet. A fluorescent light is capable of illuminating an entire room. At first I didn’t think the stick was remotely comparable to anything. Maybe this comparison doesn’t make sense, but that’s the way I saw it.

Read more!

Week 8- Julie Fair- Ethics and Biotechnology

This week's topic of biotechnology is immensely complex. It can be analyzed and discussed on so many different levels and in so many different ways even within the same field of study. I thought it was especially interesting to be exposed to artists' perspectives on the issue. Previously I had not known that there was so much art work out there that addressed this issue. I guess I had pretty much only ever experienced this issue in the arenas of science and politics until now. I think that the artists' points of view with regard to this issue will have important implications in the future and I can see their work becoming increasingly significant in the political sphere as the field of bio tech becomes more prevalent and developed. I can see artwork pertaining to biotechnology becoming an important way to get information about the field in general and about controversial ethical issues it raises out to the public.

With this idea in mind, I will say that I found Paradise NOW especially interesting and significant. As I browsed a site detailing this project (http://www.exitart.org/paradisenow/), I found a list of the topics it proposes to address and it really seemed to hit some of ethical issues brought about by biotechnology square on the head.

Here is the list:

"Race - The implications of genetic research confirming that humans of all races are 99.9 percent genetically the same.
Economics - Ownership of genes and whether they should be patented and sold to the highest bidder
Reproduction - Germ-line gene therapy and how it could be used to design babies and/or improve the health of human beings before they are born.
Privacy - DNA identification and who has access to the information
Health - How gene therapy and new technologies will be used to prevent and treat disease
Food Safety - Risks and benefits of genetically engineered food crops and animals."

I personally believe that these issues are exceptionally important for our society to address, and feel that they have not seen enough attention on a nation wide or global level. I think that perhaps this type of art work is exactly what is needed to bring these issues to the forefront of global thought and media. They may be able to reach audiences in a way that other information relaying forms, like articles etc, cannot because they are more aesthetically appealing and attention grabbing. Here is an example of a piece from the project:

I think it does a pretty good job of orienting one's attention to a particular issue, as does the piece below, which is also from the project.

It is pretty clear that this picture is addressing the ethical issue of genetic engineering in food. It relates significantly with the issue raised by The Tissue Culture and Art Project that we discussed in section, where in the future it might be possible to grow steaks without growing animals. As I browsed the projects website I found a quote that seemed to capture the essence of the ethical issue with consuming certain animals as food, "...we must practice some kind of hypocrisy in order to be able to love and respect living things as well as to eat them." This idea can also be applied to the image above and the concept of genetic engineering of food, where I also see hypocrisy in the idea of doing genetic testing on livings things while "loving and respecting them."

On this point however, I am torn. As we discussed in discussion, where do we reach a balance between ethics and progress? As a life science student, a meat consumer, and an environment/animal lover I am able to see both sides of the issue, and have great difficulty deciding where I stand on it. However I do know that as time goes on, this issue is going to become more and more significant and some sorts of answers are going to become necessary.

Read more!

Week 8--Cui H. Cao--What is progress?

I was not ease while looking at the image of GFP (green fluorescent protein) Bunny during the lecture. Still, I am not ease now because deeply I feel sorry for the rabbit, whose gene had been manipulated and whose chance of surviving from the natural selection remained unknown.

Because of the scientific and technological progress, human beings are able to better controlling life by studying gene. Further on, because of all this "progress," artists had developed deeper insight in this genetic age. Here comes the transgenic art. Some artists thought the process of creating transgenic art is like painting on a canvas. "Similar to throwing paint at a canvas, the transgenic artist throws genes at living organisms and then waits to see what happens. "
However, this way of manipulaing life can't be taken as an expression of art at all. I admire the creativity of GFP Bunny's the arthor, as well as his knowledge and talent in both field of art and science. However, I don't consider this movement as a progress, neither in art or in science.

Read more!

Christine Dang - Week 8 - In the Name of Art and Science

Art and science are both fields that depend heavily on innovation for new discoveries and advances. As such, practitioners are constantly pushing the limits of their field, bringing in new techniques, new materials, new ideas. Also, as we've seen, science and art have a tendency to rely on one another.

However, this brings up the subject of what one of the previous posters dubbed "artists in the lab". This melding of these two fields in such a way results in these so called artistic experiments, such as transgenic art. One of the major experiments/creations discussed involved the genetic alteration of animals with the GFP gene taken from jellyfish, with a particular focus on mice and the now-famous bunny Alba.

But when it comes down to it, why are we doing this?




Many people are set on edge when they see artistic expressions such as these. Most people do not like needless torture or wanton killing. For the most part, people do not like to see animals harmed and are offended or disturbed by these transgenic creations. Personally, I agree. While I see some semblance of artistic expression, there are better, humane ways to get one's point across. Call it art if you will, but the simple presence of artistic expression does not justify the inherent cruelty of such experiments.



On the other hand, researches say they do it in the name of science. They are researching for the betterment of mankind. They are doing such things to further the research done to cure cancer and other diseases that ail people all over the world.

Grudgingly, most people accept this. They feel it is a necessary evil. They feel that they ends justify the means. And, quite frankly, people are selfish. Do they care how many rats must die in order to discover the cure to their disease? Or a disease they could possibly get?

It was a sacrifice for a worthy cause.

Worthy for who? Do the countless mice who died in experiments benefit in any way? Well, perhaps, their being dead does mean an end to the experimentation they must endure after all.

Another defense commonly used is that "these animals were bred specifically for scientific experimentation". To be honest, every time I hear someone cling to this excuse, I chuckle.

How is that any better?

Just because a creature had the unfortunate luck to be the offspring of a particular pair in a particular place and time...that gives you the right to its life? If anything, I would say that doing such a thing is an even /greater/ cruelty to the creature. Arranging, planning, giving it life. A life of sheer torture, followed by its eventual death (and if its lucky, a quick and painless one).

At least if these animals were instead captured, they had had the chance to escape. Their fate was to some degree in their hands. They had the choice to go after that particular bit of bait. The choice to wander in that particular region of their habitat. Still unfortunate, perhaps, but regardless, the creature had had some control over what happened.

And what of the failed experiments?



I recall a news story that hit last year. Taiwanese scientists had managed to create green-glowing pigs. Nothing unusual from the material covered in this class. However, the breakthrough in this story was that their pigs were 'better' than other country's transgenic pigs.

Their pigs were entirely green. Internal organs and all, everything would glow green.

When I read that story, I remember being amazed at what science could do. Then I was disturbed by the sheer fact that they had created green glowing pigs. And then, I had the thought...they know that its organs glow green. Which means, how many failed pigs did they cut open only to discover that it was not green enough for them to consider it a success?

Also, my mother once told me tales from her time in medical school involving the various labs and dissections she had done. One has remained with me all these years. For this particular lab, she had to anaesthesize a sparrow and then dissect it. It was still alive. Its lungs filled with air, its heart was still beating. The purpose of this experiment was to observe the functioning of the avian tri-chambered heart. My mother said it was 'amazing' and that she had been very 'curious' about the whole thing.

So...curiosity now is a valid reason for torture and death? If it's valid, then why are serial killers arrested. How are they tried? If a demented man mutilates his victim because he wanted to see their insides, how is that any different? He was just curious after all. The scientist is just curious. The victim has no say. The specimen has no say.

Since when did we give scientists unhindered control to life and death? Since when did science lose its ethics? To what degree are researchers allowed to go, merely for "the cause". What else shall arise in the name of science?

I fear the day when scientists are allowed to freely experiment on humans without their subjects knowledge, for inevitably that day is coming. Oh wait, correction, it has already come.

Read more!

Jacob Janco Week 8 Section 3 - Emergence

It was nice to see Professor Charles Taylor unify Art and Science in his lecture this past Wednesday. All is well in the world; the chaos, of course, was sparked by Dr. Scerri in the previous week’s lectures. Taylor’s lecture was engaging on both an artistic and scientific level. He did not water down either discipline to suit the needs of a particular group of students. As such, I found his discussion of emergence and thinking in terms of systems particularly interesting. This idea of emergence traces back to the lectures in class as well as the guest lecturers in an almost universal thematic element to the subject matter of the class. Casey Reas’s work for example is an artistic vision that emerges from simple processes and programmed systems.

I loved the evolving objects swimming and grappling with a computer created environment. I was blown away by the sheer organic feel that these “creatures” evolved into to cope with their surroundings. They mimicked biological organisms not by their inherent programming, but by inheritance patterns and the effects of the external world. I had never seen something like this, and it plays with the idea of emergence and a systems approach to biology as well as computer systems and mathematics; the last of which, I think, is the root for our understanding of the natural world. When I was young, my father would tell me that a computer is simply a machine that understandings two things, a 0 or a 1. He said that that was what it is. My understanding now is that, yes, from our current perspective a computer is nothing by 0’s and 1’s, but, no, it is far more complex once systems arise. It is easy to extrapolate this idea from a man made, simplistic computer system to the human brain and visa versa. The brain is much more complex, but understood processes form a foundation upon which the incredible, amorphous systems that lead to consciousness are built. From the simple arises the incredibly complex. The person in a crowd ceases to be a singular entity and moves with the ebb and flow of the groupthink.

What is this process? Why is it so elusive? It is so elusive because it is so hard to break it down to cause and effect, which is essentially what science is and what we understand. The problem arises when this huge amount of complexity thrown onto problems. Blue is not always qualitatively blue within the minds of different people. We are trying to piece together these processes using the infinite reduction of science to understand them. The creatures that swim through digital environments that were shown in class take a preexisting system and utilize its function. The incredibly complex mathematical formulas subject to an existent system produce similar end results as in our own tangible world. It is very strange indeed.

Emergence is the next step that we must tackle in science. Contemporary science for the most part is the filling in of what has already for the most part been discovered. I don’t remember who quoted this but it certainly makes sense to me as I read scientific journals with titles that span 5 lines with words that would scare small children. Science was created to understand our own place in the universe just like art was. Argue this you may, but it is true, our goals are selfish and what we discover and find aid us in the discovery of what it means to be human. Emergence is tied inextricably to the processes of consciousness and life and it is necessary to explore it- either as a new discipline in and of itself or as a continuation of science.
Just as a side note, rather than linking to some area of particular research for this week’s blog, I would like to recommend a book. Richard Dawkins was mentioned in lecture and he is a professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford. I have been reading The Ancestor’s Tale. It is an extremely lucid account of evolution, and although I am a life science major I find that I have a tenuous grasp on what is supposed to be one of the most important branches of study in all of human history. I find it strange that people have faith in evolution without knowing a shred of what it means. How is that better than placing your faith in some hokey mystic that claims he has the truth? It is illuminating and touches on these concepts of emergence. We are conglomerates of cells and atoms, you get the picture. Check it out, it is a fun and informative read.

Read more!

Boris Lipkin - Week 8 - Biotechnology

While we talk about and learn new ideas each week, I keep on thinking about the Two Cultures in relation to each week’s guest speakers. In week 8, we had Chris Taylor from the EEB department talk to us. He discussed his very interesting research into the possibilities of stopping malaria infection in Africa and discussed the links that he saw between art and science. He brought up a performance by a scientist, Fiengold, and the need for artists in the scientific fields.
It amused me when Professor Taylor brought up how integral artists were in helping scientists present their research. Sure, they hired artists for these jobs but these are not scientist-artists or artist-scientists. These artists do not take part in any of the research that goes into the work done by the scientist. On top of that, the artists don’t even get to be true artists either. They have very little freedom for creativity and I’m sure must follow strict guidelines so that the art meets the requirements set out by the scientists that they work with. If anything, this probably furthers the divide between artists and scientists. In today’s world we do not expect a scientist to have the artistic know-how to be able to create the art that accompanies their research. The fact that they hire artists to present their research just shows how specialized today’s world is. The artists have a very specialized, commercialized task also that does not involve any active participation in the research being done. Hence the artists aren’t doing science and the scientists aren’t doing art. The same principle can be said of Fiengold’s “performance”, what he did was a scientific demonstration that would mean nothing to anyone outside of the scientific realm. It wasn’t a performance unless we want to count scientific experiments as performance pieces, which I don’t. The links that Professor Taylor tried to set up between art and science seemed very weak to me and did as much to spread the two fields apart as bring them together.
Looking back at past weeks, the same concepts can be seen throughout the course. The artists that were “scientists” such as Steve Kurtz, Casey Reas, and others simply used science or scientists in their art like Professor Taylor uses art to describe his science. To me, when we talk about science we talk about the research being done to gain more knowledge in whatever field of scientific inquiry. Thus the work of Steve Kurtz and Casey Reas does not qualify as science to me because while they use modern science or scientists in their work, they are not pushing the boundaries of human technology or advancing research. When Steve Kurtz works with scientists, I’m sure he uses them in a similar capacity as Professor Taylor uses artists: they are there to create one piece of his artwork using well-known techniques with little freedom of ideas. The scientists are there to serve a purpose; to fill a niche that is needed for a successful performance.
Looking through the first eight weeks of this class, I cannot find one example of a hybrid (not the transgenic art style) artist-scientist or scientist-artist. In my first blog I wrote about the splitting of the Two Cultures after the idea of the Renaissance Man, who was an expert in all trades including art, science, literature, etc. disappeared. I think this class has demonstrated how the divide has grown since we’re almost done and I still don’t have an example of someone who bridged the gap of the Two Cultures.

Read more!

Misuses of Since, Andrew Modlin, Section 3 Chris

As an artist I understand the need to want to explore new mediums and make a critique on the way things work in society. YetI disagree with how artists have choosen to do so.

Art has evolved ever since humans started with basic drawings. Painting and sculpture have changed as humans have found new ways to work. We invented different types of pigments and made a verity of different mediums to use. It only seems natural that as technology evolved artists would want to find a way of manipulating it for their benefit.

As I have mentioned before I a have always been interested in both art and scince. In highschool I had an internship in a zebra fish lab at UCLA. The lab uses the GFP protein in the zebra fish to illuminate different hart problems. These hart diseases were usually a resut genetics. Usually the zebra fish eggs were injected with a small needle to insert the protein into the cell.

Now there is the whole argument about doing testing on animals and how that is wrong, but in my opinion if it is going to lead to new infermation then may it is worth it. While I worked there i saw a lot a lot of test on the zebra fish to see if they could make the whole body glow with the GFP protein. They used a mouse skin plasmid and stuck the GFP protien into it. This was before the bunny was created, probably around 2000 or earlier. It was really interesting to seen the different ways that the protein could be inserted into a gene and how we as humans have found ways to manipulate the way organisms are made.

Yet I do disagree with the ethics of projects like this. While it is cool to seen a zebra fish glow its is completely unnecessary. It was worth doing once but why do we have to keep changing animals in this way. I feel this problem relates back to my criticism of Steve Kurtz. He constantly was doing experiments and projects that would anger the government and society. He said that they had to be done in order to get a message across. But to me the only message that was shown was his disregard for the laws of society and his disregard for others safety.

I am very liberal but I believe that there are some laws that are supposed to be fallowed for everyones protection. Some laws do protect people and are not just arbitrary, like a lot of them are. I feel that a lot of artist who work with science showed blatant disregard for these laws and the scientific community. They are trying to critique the medium of science by doing the same things the scientists are doing. This is not the right way for them to get their point across.

I also have been feeling like a lot of the information we are learning about in class is little bit wrong. We are learning a lot about science from an artist’s perspective. This is a little biased and could be incorrect. In one of the other blogs I read about the hair cactus being a fraud. This would really cause the artist to loose a lot of credit. Only causing the artists message to be lost even more.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 8 - Transgenic Art

This week's subject matter really piqued my interests. I have always considered myself to have a scientifically-oriented mind, and it was a relief to see a crossover into this class of a subject I am familiar with: genetics and animal hybrids.

The picture above emerged on the internet about two years ago of some of the earliest "artistic" transgenic animals. In the case of these genetically altered mice, the gene that codes for the protein (GFP protein) that makes jellyfish glow was inserted into their makeup via a DNA retrovirus. Without going into too much detail, the synthetic viruses infected the mice by altering its DNA. If all goes as planned (as in this picture), the result is a mice capable of creating glowing progeny.

Odd experiments such as this are greatly helping the frontier of new medicine by allowing scientists to test and observe new methods of disease treatment. Such technologies, when perfected, could lead to the prospect of a cure for diseases such as cancer. I am all for these experiments in the name of scientific enlightenment, but when this "transgenic art" crosses over into popular culture and media to become the next big thing in the arts scene I find it unacceptable.

Scientific experiments should exist and take place in laboratories and stay there - far, far away from the art world. When the GFP Bunny (shown, left) hit the mainstream, it became the next big thing. Soon enough, its pictures were plastered all over the walls of popular art galleries. Has the modern scientist taken the role of the modern artist, or have the two merely became on in the same? It is my belief that there is such a thing as the scientific artist, but he does not have to work in the labs modifying DNA do become such. More 'traditional' (it is interesting that I find myself using this term) scientific artists like Casey Reas and Stelarc are still incorporating scientific practice into their work but they are not messing with nature's natural order.

Read more!

art as a crime- james zavala- week 8

This week’s topics took a turn that I appreciate. For the last couple of weeks I have been bored with the class, but this week was a different story. I have never gotten so angry about the topic and things that a professor has said during lecture. We talked about the topic of science and how animals are subjected in order for studies to be conducted. Although it may seem horrible, the human race has benefited from studies imposed on animals and although it may sound harsh to say, some studies have been well worth the sacrifice of an animal. There are others though that seem to be only for the purpose of finding something neat or putting out a message. It is then when I understand that the end does not justify the mean. It then makes me even angrier when artist put themselves in same positions as the scientist about no positive intentions in the sense of subjecting animals. I fully understand and appreciate the fact that artists get the message out to the public but it must be done so in a rational manner. It is hypocritical for someone to criticize something and then turn around and do the same thing. There are artist who are trying to protest the subjection of animals but their message is poorly put across when they decide to do it in the same manner that they are criticizing. The professor brought up a good point but nonetheless I don’t find it to be valid. She stated that although she knows its wrong for artist to do what they are criticizing it is more affective in getting the point across. NO!!! There are other mediums that artist can work with in order for them to state what they want; the self is one. Although it may seem ridiculous, if an artist really wants to capture an audience’s attention by subjecting a being to cruel punishment, then let it be themselves. I always saw Stelarc as a crazy artist but nonetheless, I respect him for the fact that he subjected himself to unusual things and not anyone else in order to make his point. What I am trying to say is that if you want to show something and convey a message, use the medium of your own self to do so, make yourself glow in ultra violet lights if you want. In discussion it was then brought as to define what is living and available to be subjected to studies. Xarene stated that she felt bad because on one of her projects that she had worked on, she had killed living plants. This may not be remotely compared to the art projects done onto real animals. It all goes back to the self and having a sense of awareness, being conscious. A plant does not know that it exist and has no emotions or ability to feel, animals like humans do. To create something that will suffer and be conscious of, like the rat that was susceptible to getting cancer is not appropriate for the sake of art. In essence, let every being be their own, it is only ok to conduct such experiments when the ends justify the means, otherwise impose them upon you.

heres an interesting link.

Read more!

Kiesha Nazarenus, Week 8, bioart

This week’s topic lead to some opinionated views…of course when does this class not lead to opinionated views? In all seriousness though I got to thinking in our discussion section this week. We were into the topic of the bunny that “glowed in the dark” and whether or not it is acceptable or should really be done as a form of art. Somehow this got into the whole vegetarian debate and the testing of rats in labs. It’s kind of funny because our class seems to have extremists promoting both sides of the topic since it is made up of everything from art to biochem majors. Let’s face it, if you bring up the “rats should be treated just like people…how would you feel if tests were done on you against your will” debate in this class you’re going to get some people who are there to say “Pah-leese”. This is how I feel in simple terms…you want to advance in science and technology, then get over it. Now this will probably turn some people against me so in more eloquent terms since we are unable to test certain things on humans the most appropriate alternative is testing on rats and without this testing we would be unable to progress from the advances we have already made. Of course I’m getting off topic because what this class really pertains to is the artwork being composed on these other living beings. Do I think this is right? I really don’t know yet. Should we be able to and do we have the right to submit other living organisms to this treatment? How is it different from scientific testing? And what validates scientific learning over artistic expression? In what ways does this differ from Stelarc and Orlan’s work and because of these differences does it make one form more acceptable over the other? All questions I think about.

The guest lecturer was interesting this week. He seemed like a really sweet guy with quite a lot of knowledge and quite an interesting life. You know when your looking at something that seems so complex and then someone points out something to you that is so simple you can’t believe you never saw it before and then whenever you look at it the only thing you can see is the something so simple that was pointed out to you and it just makes everything make perfect sense. Well if you followed that it’s along the lines of what happened to me in class on wed. Up to this point it has just kind of been like, ok yea we have art and we have science and sometime the artist uses some of the science stuff to make their art stuff. But, I was sitting there listening on wed and it just all came together. Everything from the illustrations of the anatomy of the body to the bird books drawn vs. photographed to the illustrations of molecules to the moving diagrams of malaria to the performance art in a NASA meeting to Karl Sims work. All of it is science and yet all of it was expressed to us through art. I never recognized how it came down to such a simple and organic form. Karl’s work really interested me and I’m pretty sure that I was first exposed to his work in my AP bio class in high school. Through animation he is able to illustrate Darwinian evolution. http://http://www.genarts.com/karl/evolved-virtual-creatures.html Each week gets more and more interesting. With just two weeks left I wonder what is yet to come.

Read more!

Derek Ganong - Week 8 - Artists in the LAB!

This weeks lectures have brought up several very complex questions that many people in the class feel very strongly about. These questions dealt with the role of and limitations, if any, that should be imposed on creativity as well as the right of any organism to utilize another in such a way that is harmful to it. I, like everyone in the class, have an opinion on both topics and I want to use this blog entry as a stream of consciousness of my opinions so that I can draw rationalizations from them.
The following is a quote from Albert Einstein and accurately reflects my opinion of creativity and knowledge:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein

I believe that imagination and creativity are the most important human elements. Without them there can be no realizations and we will be stuck looking at everything around is from the same angle in with the same ideological basis. With that being said, a persons creativity and imagination should know no bounds insofar as that creativity does not pose a threat to the well-being or potential creativity of others. An example from lecture and discussion would be an artists use of biological agents or genetic alterations to produce hybrid variants of animals and other organisms. In this situation, an artists should have the freedom to do whatever they like, but they still need to go through the proper scientific channels if they want to display/release anything that could have even the most remote effect on “spaceship earth”. This is why scientists have a stage of peer review before they publish results. Like Sean Dockray says “the group is smarter than the individual”. This means that no matter how groundbreaking an exhibit May be or how astonishing an artists piece of transgenic art is, it must be examined by the peers within the works idiom. I think that there should be no restrictions on what an artist can do with transgenic art, or any art for that matter, but the work must ALWAYS be evaluated before its exposition. No matter how trivial the pieces danger is, it must be reviewed if it has even the slightest chance of causing harm to our ecosystems. Artists that work in this realm must adapt to a different way of exposition if they chose to work with a medium that poses far more health implications than paint and clay.

The other controversial question that was brought up is the right of humans to use other animals for testing, artwork, etc... I am still undecided as to wether or not I agree with the use of fruit flies and lab mice for scientific gain or artistic achievement, but I have come to the conclusion that the solution will involve some kind of compromise or balance. While the experimentation on other, lower-order, animals will reap great scientific progress, the ethical implications of sacrificing another life for that of humanity are quite great. It all really comes down to personal opinion and attitudes. If you have no problem with staying in the present then it would be easy to come to the conclusion that the condemning of lab mice to unnatural, painful, and short life's for the sake of scientific progress is a terrible, monstrous thing. On the other hand, someone who believes that it is the goal of humanity to supersede biological limitations and progress would have no problem using genetically identical rodents for testing.
I think that the solution is to have an open mind, but logical thought tends to make me lean towards the opinion that testing on biological animals is a necessity. The long term future for humanity is pretty scary. With our population continuing to grow an unimaginable rates and pathogenic production and mutation can easily spread to all corners of the earth, the only hope for humanity is to either eradicate those pathogens or colonize space. (Both of these options also require developing the means to sustain life). When you look at it this way, it becomes a painful necessity to gain knowledge as quickly as possible.
Throughout this blog I have come to the realization that the minute, single human, lifetime does not allow us to be as long term oriented as we must in order to survive as a species. The ethical concerns over animals in the scientific testing realm are purely short sighted. Nothing bad will come from the simultaneous elimination of the fast producing rodents and gaining of valuable medical knowledge. For that matter, I think that the artistic use of animals should also be allowed to the same degree that the scientific testing of animals is. Art has just as important of a role in the education of society. While science reveals, art conceives and is the expression of imagination. I will say, however, that the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics is absurd. I cannot find any situation where cosmetic animal testing is good in any way.

Read more!

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble-the hairy cactus is a fraud

When Professor Vesna was showing the transgenic art in class this week I found some of the projects pretty ridiculous. Obviously the GFP bunny is real, because transgenic GFP organisms are quite common in research. However, the project that really got to me was the cactus that is growing human hair. While this may seem like a "cool" idea, further thought will reveal how ridiculous of an idea this truly is.

My first point is that human hair is made of a protein called keratin and their is a very important niche in each hair follicle. The follicle consists of actively dividing cells and quiescent cells which are constantly being replenished by stem cells. This complicated follicle is not only complicated due to the unique cell types that are there, but also because of the organization. If anyone is interested in learning more about the hair follicle, you can check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_follicle

So immediately it became apparent to me that this art project was a fraud. By simply trangenically modifying a cactus with a single gene like she states on her website would not achieve such a dramatic phenomena as growing human hair. Furthermore, there is not a single gene responsible for growing hair. In fact, there would be hundreds, if not, thousands involved in such a complex phenomena since such a complex structure must be developed before hair growth. Also, when you transgenically modify an organism, you modify every cell. It would be very difficult to control the production of all these genes to be expressed at the right times in the right places to produce hair in place of the endogenous cactus spikes.

When I was searching on the internet about the cactus, I saw a website that highlighted an article on a prominent science website called new scientist. The article is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124404.300-hairy-cactus.html . The article also questions the validity of the science. The article points out that plants don't even make the protein keratin which makes human hair.

I found another interesting website that is obviously a fraud, but this website claims that they used the same techniques as the cactus project to make a emo-plant. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~art511_j/emerging2003.f/SDandanmaster/sdandan.proj1/Emotiplant.html. the emo-plant apparently has human emotion genes inserted into it, so that the plant now has emotions. Obviously there is not a single gene that controls emotions.

So, I do not mean to completely tare this art apart, but let's be honest, its ridiculous. There is absolutely no way that this plant is real. However, I am not trying to suggest that this plant couldn't be real one day. I think that although this artist loses a lot of credibility and power in her art, I think her main message about transgenically modified organisms remains.

Read more!

Annie Wu- Week 8

This week’s topic is obviously a very controversial one; transgenic art is such a new idea that it is hard to accept and hard for people to apply to their daily lives. Personally, I still do not really know what to think of transgenic art and genetic engineering. I feel like there are so many possibilities in this area, because of the developed technologies, that sometimes it is hard to distinguish whether these advancements are for better or worse. I mean, inevitably, transgenic art and genetic engineering will be big parts of our future, taking the technology that we already have to another level. I feel like it is such a huge step that its influence on mankind, and life in general, is somewhat questionable. Transgenic art raises a lot of questions, such as, what is considered to be art, the definition of the physical body, and the ethics of this genetic practice.

Like we mentioned in discussion section, art is more about discovery rather than its visual appeal. I truly believe that the main aesthetic characteristic of art is how people relate to it, the relationship between the work and the viewers. Transgenic art is definitely an art form because of the reactions and emotions it evokes from viewers. When I first saw Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny, I was without a doubt instantly intrigued. Never had I seen a fluorescent green bunny before, other than in cartoons or drawings. What really amazed me was HOW this was possible. By simply tinkering with the genes within organisms, we are able to produce such interesting results. The process of genetic engineering is an art form itself, because of the consequences. Transgenic art is really able to draw some kind of reaction out of people, whether is it positive or negative. Also, it really expands the idea of what art is because transgenic art can apply to so many things and produce endless possibilities.

Because of transgenic art, it really does seem as if the body is becoming more obsolete. The physical body is no longer a restraint, seeing as to how it can easily be changed through the genes. Whereas Stelarc questions the definition of the body through his robotic extensions, genetic engineering questions the definition of the body by directly changing the body itself. If the body can be so easily changed through the adding of synthetic or natural genetic material, then what is the body’s purpose? What is its function, now genetic alterations supercedes it? Transgenic art really expands our perception of the physical world.

What is most controversial about transgenic art is the moral principle of it. To me, transgenic art is really interesting because it helps us to understand genes more and because of the many possibilities it offers us as humans. However, I do think that genetic engineering should not be tampered with too much; there has to be some kind of limitation. I do not think that it is our place as humans to play the role of God, to try to take life into our own hands. I am sure that genetic engineering would be very beneficial to humankind when it comes to dealing with diseases and other disabilities, but I do not think we should take advantage of this technology and try to overdo it within our lives. I do not think it would be necessary for us to created neon-colored house pets, or to make hybrids of organisms, such as plantimals. I think that would be us stepping over the boundary, where we use transgenic art superfluously.

In this article I found, it states, “Kac wants genetic manipulation to be viewed also as a form of artistic expression.” While I agree that genetic manipulation can be seen as an artistic expression, I do not believe that it should be taken advantage of. Yes, the process of genetic manipulation can be considered to be artistic, and the end results are provoking; however, I just don’t feel that life should be tampered with. In a way, this reminds me of Frankenstein, where Dr. Frankenstein acts as God and creates a living person on his own. It is something that is not natural and is simply not meant to be. I think only because of man’s pride and ambitions is genetic engineering a possibility.

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/omathuna_2002-07-08.htm

Read more!

Week 8- Trangenics and Politics

Zara Feeney
Desma 9
Dis TA: Xarene
803454305
05/23/07

Week 8- Trangenics and Politics

Technology plays a significant role in how society can alter biology. As new science advances, genetic engineering makes transgenic biology possible for artist. Artists use this new science to work on recumbent DNA or recombining DNA from one specimen to another. For example, artist Eduard Kac made a GFP K-9 by taking a normal dog and putting protein of a jelly fish in its skin so its hair would glow like the jellyfish. He claims that “ transgenesis will be an integral part of our lives—with applications in food processing, aesthetics and medicine and will even call into question our concepts of species and what is human.” I respect his statement, but I have to question if this hybrid of animals merely for decorative purposes or for something more important that will benefit humanity/the environment?
Media influences our desire to alter our body for aesthetic purposes. Many people get plastic surgery to idealize their form and appearance. Kac claims that, “ the skin is no longer the immutable barrier that contains and defines the body in space. Instead it becomes the site of continuous transmutation.” The idea behind plastic surgery—to alter biology for visual appeal has greater triggered experiments with hybridizing species and transgenic art. This idea makes me question how toying with life can effect us as species directly, and more importantly, if this vision of art outweighs the social, medical, political and economic consequences of doing this type of art. What is the relationship between transgenic art and the public?
Then there is the idea of animals becoming extinct and how making new life form can attribute to the biodiversity on earth. When Kac genetically altered a K-9 with the protein of a jellyfish the dog becomes the founder of a new transgenic lineage. Although this procedure does not harm the dog in any way, I still question if creating strange hybrid creatures is necessary and if so, how far will art take this practice? Will they ever make humans glow?

Read more!

Christopher Flannery - Week 7 - Consciousness

I have always been fascinated by the limits of senses. It is crazy to think that there is energy we can’t feel, sound we can’t hear, and light and matter we can’t see. I believe it is landmark in human consciousness to address the limits of our sensory system and mind. For this reason, I like Paul Cezanne’s work because he attempts to reflect how a human actually perceives the world. A majority of the time, a person does not spend time sitting in a single place concentrating on a focal point, so why should all art do so? I think it’s almost impossible to do, but I love the idea of trying to represent the relation of objects, time, and movement on a snapshot canvas.! I was ecstatic to see the Jimi Hendrix and especially the Beatles in class because I am a hardcore fan. I don’t think people of my generation appreciate their impact on music, social awareness, and of popular culture. I got the impression that most people in the class did not connect their relevancy to the class’s topic. In particular, I don’t believe that UCLA’s current student population would see the value in drugs, particularly hallucinogenics, for the purpose of reaching a higher state of consciousness. I liked Scerri’s description of “cheating” or “jumping” into realizations through drugs and his warning that it could easily go wrong. It’s always kind of awkward discussing drugs, even for a positive purpose, in an academic setting and this reflects mind altering substance’s dismissal from the popular knowledge collection. The Beckley Foundation is committed to being the first organization to study the effects of LSD on human subjects since the 1970s. Their studies concentrate on “science, health, politics and history of practices used to alter consciousness, ranging from meditation to the use of psychoactive substances.” http://beckleyfoundation.org/
My favorite reading was Gregory Bateson’s “Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unit”. In this article he addressed the two questions of: What exactly is the difference between living and non-living forms? And what connects all living creatures? He does not address the concept of human consciousness but rather takes the approach of what all biological creatures share in common, not what makes humans unique, to find a conclusion.
His main example was asking how one, having only the knowledge of a Martian, could determine if the corpse of a crab ever was a living thing. The first clue he provides is that the crab is almost symmetrical and when there are differences, the structures are made of the same kinds of parts. Every part of the creature is intra-related the rest through a structure that reflects organization, growth, and utility. He goes on to make this relation between similar species, like the lobster and crab, and different species, like a human and a horse. The unifying theme is a system.
His next example is a seashell without an organism left. This example is a different solution to nature’s process of growth. The shell solves the evolutionary problem of growth in a different mathematical process. The spiral pattern retains it shapes and dimensions as it grows and can be found in many species.
We recognize these patterns naturally because we have many of them. In connection to the week’s lecture, how much of this information is innate or arrived at through judgment or learning. Bateson seems to think that all living organisms possess this information at some level, but I find it hard to believe simpler organisms have a concept of evolution and growth.

Read more!

Week 7, "Instinct as a Misnomer"

This week's lectures really caught my interest once we began to talk about memory and consciousness - especially once we began to get into the more "heated" in-class discussions regarding instincts/first impressions...

I thought that it was pretty interesting to see how different people expressed their opinions about the topics discussed. One of the most interesting questions debated was: when a person meets someone for the first time, is the impression that they get (their initial instinct) based off of previous experiences or off of pure emotion from one's sub-conscious? Personally, I agree with many of the students who voiced their opinions saying that first impressions are typically the results of past experiences with different people. I believe that certain features or qualities of a new person trigger certain memories and experiences from the past with people of like characteristics, thus resulting in the first impression judgment. So, I suppose that I think that the word 'instinct' is a misnomer. Maybe there is no such thing as this sort of 'gut feeling'... everything that we think is instinct is really a nearly-instantaneous comparison/judgment that allows us to get a feel for this unknown person or unchartered territory.

On a side note, I must admit that I was utterly confused about Schrodinger's cat... that is, until I found this website and watched the little video clips and read the information. For all of those who are a little uncertain about their quantum mechanics and the Quantum Theory of Superposition, try this:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

... it will most definitely help...

Read more!

Ross Goldman - Section 3 - Week 7

When I first heard that a science professor would be lecturing in class, I had mixed emotions. I was glad to see that, in fairness, not all guest lecturers were artists. It would be interesting to hear about the art/science divide from someone on "the other side." On the other hand, I expected an old, stodgy professor to bore us in a dull monotone.
Instead, I was surprised to discover that our guest was Dr. Scerri, who is somewhat of a celebrity around campus for being an interesting, thought-provoking person inside and outside the classroom. I had heard his guitar playing skills before, and had been quite entertained. I'd seen somewhat controversial videos on YouTube of his antics on Bruin Walk.

I found his lecture quite interesting on a number of levels. His line of research was at first hard to understand and seemed rather boring. However, once I realized the implications of his work, I was intrigued by the possibilities of his potential discoveries.

One of the most fascinating parts of his talk was Quantum Mechanics. This area of science is beautiful in a very artistic sense. It is pushing the boundaries of accepted scientific principals, such as Newtonian physics, much like modern art does. It is home to some simply beautiful theories and bizarre dilemmas, as illustrated through Schrodinger's Cat.

Of particular interest to me is the EPR paradox, something that Dr. Scerri touched on briefly. Briefly, and over-simply, it states that one part of a quantum mechanics system can instantaneously affect another part of this system miles away, with no apparent physical connection. And instantaneously truly is applicable here; this communication seems to happen faster than the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox

Only time will tell how these discoveries will change our understanding of the world around us, but as Dr. Scerri demonstrated, the possibilities very interesting.

Read more!

Week 7- Duy Phung- Consciousness and the “Two Cultures”

We’ve never seen such an interesting debate like this week’s topic. The question revolves around consciousness and judgment. Wednesday carried on the Monday’s discussion on “first impression” judgment. Lots of people raised their hands, expressed their opinions, and sometimes even questioned the professors’ perspectives. While I was enjoying the atmosphere of this “hot” debate, I was disappointed with Dr. Scerri on many points.
According to Wikipedia, consciousness is “a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.” Since consciousness is based on one’s feeling and perspective, it’s unique. While both Prof. Vesna and Dr. Scerri agreed that good judgment in making decisions was essential to our survival and success, they argued whether the first impression was reliable. Prof. Vesna believed that we should trust our instinct and intuition, but Dr. Scerri claimed we only make conclusion after examining and analyzing that matter. In other words, we should never rely on our instinct but hard facts.
Both arguments are neither right nor wrong. Since consciousness is subjective, one can’t really argue that their reason is valid and work for other people. In the other words, there’s no universal standard for consciousness. It’s understandable when Prof. Vesna said that most of the times she would go with her instinct to decide something. There’s no real procedure to create a piece of art. When you deal with art, you have to rely on your imagination and instinct completely. When a new idea flashes in an artist’s head, that idea is not a spontaneous process, it reflects the result of years of experience, hard work, and observation. Many of us agree that in a multiple-choice test, it’s best if we keep up with our first-time choice. We tend to rely on our first impression when we meet someone, then decide if that person is reliable and should we work with him/her. Whether you believe it or not; most of the time this method work rather well. In any given society at any given time in human history, trust is essential for our success while paper work is just a back up in cooperation. Trusting our instinct helps we pick out friends, who are suitable for us, choose the most important thing to do when there are many tasks that seem equally important, or follow an unclear path which might affect profoundly to our future. Most Nobel laureates, who are scientists, base on their intuitive judgment to decide whether the ideas are worth pursuing in their 30s and work hard on them later.
Scientists are taught not to rely on instinct but facts from experiments. When a theory or hypothesis is proposed, it’s vulnerable to testing. Scientists follow strict method and procedure to conduct the experiment that is posted by the primary researchers. If the experiment is repeated with the same result, it’s valid. But that is not the point. Over time out of thousand experiments that are carried out, if one shows different results than obtained from the experiment, the hypothesis/theory is discredited right away. That is why Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GRT) although have been many years, they’re still theories, not facts. So far, these theories have been withstanding countless tests.
For example, in 2004, Gravity Probe B, a satellite-based mission, launched in 2004 to test related models in application of Einstein's GRT. Initial results from data have confirmed the effect of Einstein's GRT to a precision of 0.5%. Therefore, both Prof. Vesna and Dr. Scerri were not wrong. They simply presented what kind of “consciousness” worked best for them based on their fields of expertise and experiences.
Dr. Scerri was the first guest lecture who happens to be a scientist. He had been praised for his interesting lectures, vast knowledge, and guitar skill by his students. However, I was disappointed with him, not in his lectures but his point of view. While this class has been trying to incorporate and bridging ideas between art and science, he seemed to stick with the idea “to leave things where they are”. To him, science is about observation, experiment, and facts, etc… Science is measurable and unambiguous while art is abstract, immeasurable, and ambiguous. They’re independent and so can’t work well with each other, such as on the notion of progress, or reliability of first impression. He reluctantly agreed that progress is not unique but reserved his perspective on scientific progress. No doubt he believed science is the future, and we should have followed the standard of science. It’s true that science has advanced exponentially and achieved tremendous successes, but one should remember science not only about experiment and facts but also open-mindedness, a key for successful scientists.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Read more!

--- Week 7 --- Section 2 --- John “Matt” Ko ---

This week revolved a lot around the human mind and its various aspects of thought. Whether it was memory, higher states of consciousness, or the way perception is in a quantum universe, we discussed topics of the mind in some form in lecture this week.

It is no wonder that people search for higher states of consciousness when many diseases of the mind plague our world. In some cases, this is much more severe:
Obsessive-compulsive disorder – basically people with this disease cannot live “normal” lives due to the fact that they frequently encounter things that cause them to act spontaneously. And unfortunately, these things that they encounter will be little things, things that normal people either don’t mind or overlook entirely. The most popularized version of OCD is where one will be obsessed with cleaning. If they see ANYthing dirty, and they’ll clean it. How could you lead normal life when you’re constantly compelled and interrupted by the urge to clean? (http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/AnxietyDis/ocd1.jsp)
Attention Deficit Disorder – people with this disease find themselves unable to focus, leading them to become restless and angry. Again, “normal” life is hard to be found for these types of people. (http://psyweb.com/Glossary/add.jsp)
These are people who need medical drug induced “higher states of conciousness” in order to even make it through the day. And there are millions of people among the American population that suffer from this. But I would venture to say that the whole nation if not the whole world suffers from some kind of “mental disorder”. Anger, depression, loneliness, bitterness, fear, narcissism, egotism, the list goes on endlessly. No one truly has a clear state of mind, and that is why people seek drugs, medication, meditation, anything that someone claims will give one a “higher state of consciousness.”
I am very skeptical of this search for the higher state of consciousness. For sure, people who turn to drugs are not finding it, if anything they just exacerbate their problems. Medication can work in some cases, but those are the people with mental disorders who are just looking for the lift to higher state of normal consciousness. And as far as meditation goes, I don’t know for sure, but I think a good number of people just fool themselves into thinking they’ve reached that state, and even if meditation is truly the way, it doesn’t appear to carry on past the meditative state. The human consciousness is a funny thing. It’s so basic to life, yet the world is neither able to explain it nor fix it.

Quantum mechanics is a topic I personally like considering I just took a class on quantum mechanics in chemistry. It’s truly an interesting subject. Wave-particle duality, Schrödinger’s cat, the superposition of states, it’ll all blow your mind. The concept of the superposition of states is the true basis for this field. The idea behind it is that anything and everything is in every possible state is can be in, until it is observed. So if we were talking about a rock in a forest, before I am able to see it, it is in the air, on the ground, and underground all at the same time, but some states are more likely than others. Only when I see it on the ground, is it on the ground. The common version of this theory is “if a tree falls down in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” And by this theory the answer is essentially no. We have found true proof of this only on the atomic level. If you look at all the details surrounding the double slit experiment, you would be truly amazed. This is a quick video about the experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA It is explained very simply and clearly, and I believe that it is very much worth the 5 minutes it will take to watch it.

Read more!

Eddison Lai-Week 7-Be careful when seeking enlightenment

This weeks lecture on memory and consciousness interested me the most. I was particularly fascinated by the talk this week of the people who have amazing memory because of their ability to “sense” things or associate things with numbers and colors. I remember watching Rainman and seeing how Dustin Hoffman, an autistic savant, has an incredible memory and can count with incredible accuracy. The thing about these savants is that they usually have a disorder in their brain that shuts down part of it but opens up another. They have amazing abilities because part of their brain is enhanced.!!! In many cases, the cerebellum is damaged or restricted, and motor activities are disabled. Usually, the savants are autistic and require help and sometimes cannot do normal things like button up shirts or drive a car. But I’ve learned in some cases, savants have some normal behavior like a sense of humor. Kim Peek, the real “Rainman”, has recently developed a sense of humor and uses metaphors and proverbs in his speech. His amazing ability of memory has made him famous and now at the age of 56, he is still as sharp as ever.
These people can be considered to have a higher state of consciousness. They may not have their whole mind at enlightenment, but at least they have a part of it close to it. The Beatles also tried to find enlightenment similar by seeking meditation teachings of Maharishi. People who meditate try to concentrate their attention on the mind, thought, or awareness. These people usually follow eastern religions. Off the top of my head, Buddhism and Hinduism are the most common to practice meditation.
From what I’ve been told by my some elders who practice meditation, enlightenment is something that takes a long time and patience. You can’t have too many things to focus on and have to dedicate a lot of time to reaching enlightenment. That’s why usually meditation is done by older people who have lived their lives and want to move on to something more. It is not recommended for a 20 year old to try and reach enlightenment because he has big things to do before he should dedicate the rest of his life to enlightenment.
Also, trying to reach enlightenment for the wrong reasons is also very dangerous. I’ve heard a story where a teenager was meditating and didn’t really know what to do and what not to do and he ventured out away from what I interpreted as a path you must follow and he became possessed for a short period of time and has never been the same since. You might think that’s just a myth but when I saw the kid, he had a distinct trait that didn’t seem normal to me. Not only was he quiet but very odd in behavior.
I’m not trying to scare anyone away from reaching enlightenment, just wanted to give a warning to be careful. Anyways I found some different ways to meditate. I’m not sure what is legit. Here they are.
http://www.meditationsociety.com/108meds.html!!!

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 7-Dr. Scerri and other nonsense

Unfortunately, I was not in class on Monday due to a dental emergency, but I did hear about the "encounter" between Professor Vesna and Dr. Scerri. However, I took Dr. Scerri's Chemistry 14A course last quarter, so I'm very aware of his behavior. So, it came as no shock to me on Wednesday when he acted in his usual rude and self-absorbed fashion and treated Professor Vesna just about as poorly as he treated many of his chemistry students. Granted, Dr. Scerri is a brilliant man, and I'm sure his work has added a great deal to the scientific community; however, I do not feel that his intelligence makes up for his lack of manners, and I would like to commend Professor Vesna for behaving not only as a professional, but also as a kind and considerate human being even in the face of his appalling disregard for her very valid thoughts and opinions.

Now that I got that out, I suppose I should be moving on to actual material from discussion and lecture.

RISOME. This is something Zach briefly mentioned in discussion. I didn’t really understand what he was talking about, and I attributed this at least partially to my lack of sleep and subsequent lack of focus. However, I researched it a bit more, and it still makes absolutely no sense to me. If you’re reading this, and you want to figure out for yourself what this RISOME business is, check out this site:

http://risome.soc.surrey.ac.uk/conference.htm

The home page is trying to achieve some sort of Matrix aesthetic, but failing miserably. Random falling numbers and symbols from the Japanese phonetic syllabary do not look mysterious, nor are they pleasing to the eye. In fact, I feel this design just serves to undermine the seriousness and validity of the whole idea that is being explained. Okay, enough of that. I just can’t handle things that try so hard to be interesting and mysterious and aren’t. Anywho, if any of you readers (if there are any of you out there) want to give me the shorthand of this explanation, please feel free.

Now, Dr. Scerri, Dr. Scerri. Well, first off, I would like to say that, if what he said about ancient practitioners of Eastern religions/philosophies figuring out elements of modern quantum physics by way of enlightened meditation, I am extremely disappointed. Wouldn’t you think that enlightenment, if in fact something like this could be attained, would hold much more profound secrets than ones dealing with the momentum of falling bodies and other related things? Of course, I am seriously marginalizing the importance of physics for my point, but I am just deeply disturbed that laws of science would be the only things to be learned from nirvana. I am a religious man myself, so I suppose it would be expected of me to think such thoughts, but I cannot for the life of me believe that all there is to learn is more about our universe. As big as it may be in our human-conceived measurements, it just does not seem big enough to constitute all that there is and all that there ever will be.

Read more!

Week 7--Cui H Cao-- Mind Connects Everything

"while we may all operate as individuals, we also appear to share something far, far greater - a global consciousness. "--Dr Roger Nelson

I'm very interested in the topic of Global Consciousness Project. Though at the very first moment I couldn't believe that even scientists rationalize things in psychic ways, I think their ideas, which are still not fully expained, are all reasonable.

With the same situation, many artists are lived under stereotype and critisms that their abstract artworks and expressions are off-trail from the reality and so-called "normal life." Actually, every piece of artwork is presenting a piece or a collection of mind and consciousness. Mind connects everything. That's why an eastern viewer, who may have no knowledge of the western social and cultural backgrond, can fully understand western art; and that's why scientists are driven to fugure out the enigma of the global consciousness.

Read more!

Anna Marks Section 3 Week 7

One topic I found extremely interesting The Random Event Generator (REG), something we talked about in discussion. It is a little black box that spits out two numbers, zero and one, in random numbers that when graphed creates an almost straight line. However, it is thought that this little piece of technology can predict major, earth shattering events and that it can see into the future. Before 9-11, before the tsunami in East Asia, and before other major events the numbers that were generated created a huge spike in the graph, just hours before the event occurred. This puzzled scientists because the outcome of the numbers did not make any sense, but the fact that this happened before major events startled them.
We talked about this in discussion and many people were confused by how the box works and how it could run off people’s unconscious mind. I think that if anything the box would respond to people’s unconscious fears and thoughts that something bad will happen, or it responds to an undiscovered gravitational force or something that exerts enormous amounts of energy that would alter something like the Random Event Generator. I think this is a fascinating piece of technology that could help our world predict natural disasters or at least help us prepare for them. Hopefully in the future things like this will evolve into time machines or used in technology to predict catastrophic events.

Read more!

The Mind and Consciousness

This week’s topic about the mind and consciousness is something that I wrestled with in the past and still do. The definition is consciousness varies with experts of different fields, or rather just different people in general. This is an interesting connection to art also because the definition of art can be widely interpreted. By simply being aware of things around you can be deemed as being conscious, but is it really true when ultimately you are the one to make that judgment about yourself? Or is it fair to let someone make that judgment about you if there is no concrete definition of what consciousness is?

We’ve now gone from the body as art to the mind and its mysterious ways as art and what I find fascinating in this transition is why the mind didn’t come before the body. I’m not trying to ask why we didn’t look at the mind before the body in this class, but why wasn’t it contemplated like the body, before the body in the world of art? Even artificial intelligence seems to follow bodily forms of art that date back ages. Like Stelarc, “The body is obsolete” without the mind and consciousness right (I understand that wasn’t his argument)? Is that not why the state of vegetation exists, thereby leaving room for us to decide whether or not to cut the life of a person or not, determining if they are obsolete or not?

Another issue relative to this that I’ve been seeing popping up over the internet is the emerging transgender issues. Some people have felt since birth, that they were “Born in the Wrong Body” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18250458/. Some of these people feel in their minds that they are men, but their body tells them they are female, vice versa.

The issue even made front page of Newsweek last week: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18618970/site/newsweek/. The increasing number of youth coming out and telling their stories of being of or looking like one gender and feeling innately, in their minds another, makes us think more about the mind and its role on biological factors such as this.

Dr. Scerri lecture’s was one of the more understandable and interesting ones of all the guest lectures. Though it would have been better for visuals to compliment his lecture, I guess his lecture was still better than a few of the other ones. I especially liked his explanation of the state of mind to mind-altering drugs. The fact that we can leave our normal state of mind through these drugs and become oblivious to worry is wonderful, is it not? They would sure reduce a lot of unnecessary stress that we have become bogged down with, especially college students. But of course, such drugs are outlawed for their own complicated reasons.

Dr. Scerri also talked about his passion for music and in his story, I found myself relating to him. I learned to play the clarinet in middle school and though I don’t play it anymore I truly do feel that those few years of learning and playing music has had an impact on me mentally. I read online in the past that humming can even be soothing for people with Alzheimer’s. Its medical implications are unknown, but it has proven to help calm patients with Alzheimer’s. After all, Beethoven is one of the most renowned musical geniuses and he was deaf. That just goes to show that even mental or physical hindrances cannot hold back what music can do for a person or vice versa. Here, I can see a connection between the “Two Cultures.”

Read more!

Week 7

When I first came across this topic, I questioned its relevence to art. I find that, as a scientist, I view all things as science because it is easy to see how everything in nature abides by simple rules and patterns however, when it comes to art, definitions and distinctions become very blurred. The moment someone calls something art, it is as if it becomes so immediately. Additionally, anything beautiful in some way becomes art. For example, the human brain, consciousness and subconsciousness are all beautiful in that there is a mystery to all of these things but the very reason I would call them art is because they are science and the very beauty of science is that it is an uncharted road and so, in a way, our understanding and way of finding new things is a very artistic enterprise. However, perhaps this is just a matter of symantics. As time goes by and more experts present in this class and we go over more material, the definitions become less cloudy.
Anywho, the second reading was very interesting to me in that it referred to the idea of sequences and patterns that weren't really sequences or patterns like th numbers 2,4,6, 8,10,12,27. The thing I find interesting about this is that it is a study of itself; the human brain and the limitations of situations sometimes spawn artificial patterns because of familiar ideas and oftentimes we are wrong when it comes to patterns as things can appear to be in sequence when they are really not. In a similar way, this writing asserts that there is a pattern to our thinking as does the very science of behavioral sciences. In fact, as a whole, humanity as a whole works strikingly simple patterns and this is why we have such things as sciences. We all see things in differnt yet similar ways and this is how we are governed--by our similarities, not our differences. Judging by these similarities, it is easy to find very general to somewhat specific actions that people will take in certain situations. For example, I bet if someone tallied what a person gets from a cafe, it would nearly always be the same exactly or the same sequence of orders. If we took samples for longer, it is very likely that one could guess exactly what that person will order next. Mr. Bateson throws around, very frequently, the words "not predictable" but ultimately, predictability has a probabilistic nature to it; if someone predicts something, they do not know exactly that something is going to happen but rather can guess within reason that something is very likely to happen and so, to this length, I disagree with the author.
Interestingly enough, Varela and Bateson both talk about something that interests me--phenomenology. This relates to my outside research as there is was an interesting project by an artist named Shepard Fairey called the "Obey Giant campaign." I spoke about it last week but find it suprisingly related this week. To reiterate what it is, Fairey was trying to show his friend how to cut stencils and made one based off of an Andre the Giant poster. The first sticker he made said "ANDRE HAS A POSSY" which served as a joke. He later turned them into stickers and, to further the joke, put them on anything he could find. It was peoples' interpretations of the stickers and the symbols behind them that made the whole project. As it evolved and Andre's face became more stylized, the words "OBEY" were printed below his face and so it came to have an anti-establishment feeling to it and so while half of the people thought it was an awesome underground campaign set up for the purpose of rallying protestors to current situations (public policy, government people, and administrations), others thought it was a group whose purpose was to tear down the American government and all of the unity that it holds; the former group praised the sticker campaign while the latter tore the stickers down. Ultimately, Fairey put up stickers on a visceral level with seemingly no effective intellectual purpose behind his actions.
Boy, I suck at segues so pretend like there's one here. ...and so, on the topic of memes, I find its idea very intriguing. On an artistic level, there's an almost visual representation of idea after idea flowing from one person's conscious to another's and one idea of beauty and art form from preconceptions but are not taken entirely as every person contributes to this idea to make it grow and become different. Similarly, science comes from building on others' ideas and thus technology exists and becomes a living thing with each person learning from another. I wish I could expand on this but there's really no way that I can put it. At its very basic level we can see the beautiful growth of our worldwide community where information, technology, music, culture--everything becomes free and, the more free and accessible things are, the more the community can grow, and the more ideas that are sent around that become bigger parts of the world. I hope I gave that whole idea some justice.

Read more!

Juliet Lee - Week 7 - Consciousness, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

The lectures this week were interesting and entertaining. The guest speaker, Dr. Eric Scerri, had a discussion with Professor Vesna that was on a different level than what I have been used to in this class. Tuesdays talk became animated over the topic of instinct,how we may be able to use it more in our lives and Prof. Vesna's opinion that we should put more value in what first comes into our minds before intellect or other opinions change our initial feelings. I looked up the definition of 'instinct' to clarify what I had in my mind and what I thought I was hearing from our teacher. According to dictionary.com instinct is called an inborn or natural tendencies, impulses or inclinations, a response to specific environmental stimuli. With this I agree with Prof. Scerri and some of the other students in the class that what Prof. Vesna was referring to was not the equivalent to the concept of instinct. Although I think I understand what she was trying to say: what is that first gut feeling we get when exposed to something? How can we recognize what that feeling is and understand it on an intellectual level and use it to our benefit; whether for art or in the sciences or (the part that we had an issue with) when meeting a new person. There is a line that I don't believe we understand where our instincts and memories. Just like we don't understand how physics has worked for us so long, and now quantum mechanics can prove other points while not working together with physics. The sciences seem to be going through an evolutionary time period, but we still don't understand what is happening in the world around us, and I think that it parallels how we don't understand what is going on in our minds. The judgments that we make when we first meet a person are learned behaviors from our experiences throughout life. So if we think of instinct as what it actually is, the evolutionary roots of our actions then I agree that we should try and understand where it is coming from and use it to our advantage. But other than that, I don't think that we can rely on instincts too much. What we have learned over time, even though it isn't biologically programmed into our minds are still legitimate, we don't have to worry about strangers in the same way that we may have used to back in the early stages of human history.
But to hear two scholars talk and argue about the nature of their fields furthered my belief that art and science doesn't want get along. I think that art wants to be taken seriously as the sciences and science does not want to associated or compared with the arts. Its like sibling rivalry, science as the elder has the respect and art as the younger wants to be respected as legitimate in the same way. We know that art and science were once closely associated during the Renaissance, then separated from each other, however I see art trying to bridge the gap, but I don't see science reaching out to help from their end. Maybe they help to entertain the art community, but it doesn't feel like anything could really change anytime soon.

Read more!

Getty, Andrew Modlin Section 2

I was reading in one of the other blogs about how they hopped there would be some art in the class and I agree. It would be very interesting to have a media project based on the ideas from this class. We keep hearing about projects with the use of other mediums but it would be interesting to learn how to make them. I have been extremely interested in the way art pieces have been made for this class. I think it would be extremely interesting and fun to learn how to make more interactive art works.

A very interesting couple of shows to see are up at the Getty right now. Everyone who has not seen the Uberorgan should, I highly recommend go immediately. In the main rotunda at the Getty is the First work by Tim Hankinson. A massive inflatable music-playing machine, this contraption is truly remarkable. In all of Hankinson’s work there is the task of taking ordinary everyday objects and turning them into something extraordinary.

The way this works is extremely cool. A giant pump in the side room inflates several large balloons and plastic tubes. These tubes are connected to a valve and each valve is connected to cardboard tubes wrapped in aluminum foil. Then one the side there is a large scroll of music. On the scroll there are seven places for black dots to be placed. Wherever there is a black dot is located a light sensor will read it. Then inside a computer makes a new arrangement of the dots. Then opens the valves connected to the tubes. This causes the organ to play a crazy array of music.

This is extremely fascinating because it uses such limited technology. Simile parts make this contraption work. It is basically just air being pushed though tubes. The end result is whale sounds being repeated over and over again.

I have seen this twice and every time it becomes more and more interesting. The way Hankinson has created this contraption he seems to control the audience. This piece is extremely useless except in the context of art. Yet some how people will stand under it for five minutes and just stare at it. While I extremely enjoy the piece, but I hope that somewhere Hankinson is just laughing at how people are responding to it and enjoining it.

This was only part of the works at the show. In another room there are a few more works were Hankinson has done some remarkable things. There is an ink drawing of a dragon that has remarkable patterns on it. The way the forms and shapes are made its like a never ending patterns that’s continues repeats over and over again.

All of the works that Hankinson has made are truly remarkable and everyone should go see this show.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/hawkinson/

Read more!

Monica Tse - wk.7 - Consciousness

The idea of consciousness is not something I have ever really been able to verbalize. Even when we were called to try to explain it during class, I still couldn’t think of the words to explain it. The first word that popped up in my mind when I heard the word “consciousness” was “mind”. Initially, I thought in my mind that I would describe consciousness as being aware of your surroundings – physical objects, others’ conversations, what you are thinking, etc. Basically, being mentally present such that you can draw in bits and pieces of information, sort through them, and interpret them, whether it is an intensely deep thought or something superficial. But as I contemplated it more, consciousness could also be more of an ethereal thing.

I started thinking about dreams and how you can be conscious during them even though you are physically asleep and are not usually described as “being conscious”. In dreams, you can see, smell, feel, think, respond, fear, get excited, get nervous, along with many other characteristics of those who are conscious – meaning awake. So if we are considered unconscious when we sleep, yet are able to be conscious concerning our senses and feelings within the dream, can we differentiate our state of consciousness when we compare these two scenarios? I am not sure, and it only made my mind go in circles as I tried to make sense of it.

Similarly, talking about the effects of drugs such as LSD made me think of an extremely potent drug that I learned about at a pharmaceutical drug company’s discussion. Someone who had experimented with the drug described his hallucinations as feeling like he lived the reality. He had suddenly been transported to the apartment of his grandmother who had passed away, and he said he could feel the ground, touch objects, smell the old smells, and essentially, thought that he was truly in his grandmother’s apartment. The experience was so intense for him that when the effects finally wore off, he could not tell what was real and what was not. He thought he had really just been in that apartment. So again, how do you define consciousness?? If you can use drugs to experience the same physical senses that are present in reality, how is it possible to distinguish those two forms of “consciousness” or is it even possible?

On another note, professor Scerri’s lecture was interesting. He made one comment that struck a chord for me as he compared science, the nature of it, and consciousness. He asked, “how is science different from religious, political, or world views?” One answer was that science does not require faith; he notes that it is something solid and something we can be sure of. However, I think that science in fact requires a great deal of faith. Believing in science, you have faith that when you sit on a chair, you won’t fall through it or it won’t break in half. After all, according to science, everything is made up of atoms, which are merely tiny balls of protons and neutrons surrounded by a cloud of atoms; it is almost a ball of nothing. Thus, it would take faith that billions of these balls of nothing put together would create an object that is solid. In addition, it is by faith that a scientist would believe that earth is a ball of dirt that hangs in space, and it just happens that there is gravity on this ball of dirt such that objects fall, but once you enter a certain distance beyond the earth, objects become weightless and earth does not just drop out of space. All of these things don’t make sense, yet because we are raised to believe these things, we see them as fact and do not question the reasoning. However, I think that a great deal of faith is required to believe in science.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/dwda/staff6.htm

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 7 - By the way, Prog-Rock lives on

There are few things that academically propel a mind into mass introspection more than the preponderance of a humanist-scientist rumble. This week was a good week.

As one of many potent talking points, the question of progress and its role within the realms of science and art struck many in the class as controversial, incorrect or out-and-out misguided. To Prof. Scerri’s claim that progress is inherently unique to the role of science as opposed to any other study, Prof. Vesna was quick to retort to the contrary. However, the notion of progress from a scientific point of view (quite appropriately) is indeed unique to the study of science. The right side of the brain certainly can be connoted with progress, and not only in the sense of Pink Floyd or Genesis prog-rock; there is veritable truth to the concept of forward momentum in the arts and understanding of human emotion. Naturally, one would point out timely or anachronistic moments in art history as momentous occasions for the art community. Nonetheless, the similarities stop there – progress within the context of art is merely the forward movement of feigned creativity and repetition. Prof. Vesna’s claim to intuition and the artist’s mastery of instantaneous creativity is really only a reflection of the depth to which that artist has understood and absorbed art prior to his creation – no human being is truly creative. Progress itself within the context of art is merely a forward momentum; it is truly anachronistic in itself as it represents the movement of time without discussing chronology itself. Charting the ways in which Picasso’s artwork changed throughout his life is temporal in that it is discussed within the context of his life, however it has no tangible bearing on the advancement toward some penultimate or ultimate goal. The same can be said for religion or culture: the placeholder of “the meaning of life” is quoted in jest, as it describes an unattainable and virtually unfathomably impossible target.

Here roars the scientific method. As Scerri well-describes, the science of physics or quantum mechanics is not only momentous but pivotally pointed in the direction of some sought-after “truth.” As he correctly recounted, the scientific methods works not through proof but through skepticism. In the ever-expanding world scientists chip away at what will one day be a smaller and more definable body of unknown knowledge; envisioning science as a game of elimination in which each failure leads to success provides us with the surmise of something much bigger than what we already know. Science itself tends to be anachronistic and is often-times merely a placeholder for chronicling the events of human history; however, its respective studies look less to what is previously and more to what is yet uncovered.

What the argument conclusively renders itself to be is a question of mere semantics. As philosophical debate tends to be, this question is one of definition and social context. The word progress could really swing either way, and it’s difficult to pinpoint any clear conveyance with veracity. Regardless of such complications, it is fair to assume that art itself seeks progress concerning the existence of merely human life. Science, rather, chronicles our knowledge of that which surrounds us and has yet to make itself known.

Read more!

Christine Dang - Week 7 - Consciousness and the Brain

Thought. It's such an everyday activity, from the moment we wake up in the morning to the moment we finally fall asleep. For each moment we spend awake, there is a constant stream of consciousness that flows from one thought to the next. And even in moments of "blankness", the mind is at work.


But what is this thought, really? What is consciousness? From a scientific view, it's technically no more than the firing of electrons from one synapse to another. The brain is nothing more than a central nerve that controls the entire body. So from where then, does this consciousness arrive? Consciousness, thought, one's spirit, the soul. Most people acknowledge and recognize the existence of these things. But what are they really?



Personally, I am of the belief that science can explain everything in life. That, at least, on a physical level, science is the basis of existence. However, I've yet to hear a scientific explanation for the simple existence of thought that would satisfy me. Sure, there are plenty of psychological reports on thought and consciousness and instincts and whatnot, but that is not what I'm seeking.


Common belief is that one's consciousness arises from the brain. It apparently just sits there, floating about along with the gray mass of nerves. But I remember the professor mentioning once running into a tub of floating brains and commenting "there is no way that that is consciousness" (or something along those lines). That line just stuck with me. Even though so many people associate the brain and conscious thought, once the brain is taken out of context. Once it becomes just a floating mass in a bucket, somehow it becomes so terribly difficult to maintain that association.

Then there is the debate between instinct and conscious thought. Are they both controlled by the same thing? Can instinct also be associated with the brain? But then what of the unicellular creatures that could undoubtedly be argued to possess at least a basic survival instinct? They certainly do not have a brain, at least not of the technical sort. They possess a bundle of DNA, genetic code, which controls their actions and is generally referred to as the "brain" of the cell.

However, people can certainly agree that conscious thought is anything but straightforward programming. Even given the exact same situation, people will often react in drastically different ways. Additionally, perhaps consciousness is the higher evolution of the base survival instincts. Perhaps consciousness arose once people were put into situations where they no longer simply require survival but something more than that.

But that still does not answer the question of how consciousness works. What are the mechanics that operate behind its existence? Why is there a separation between the right brain and the left? The creative and the logical sides? Or perhaps consciousness does not exist at all in the brain, but elsewhere. Perhaps the division between right brain and left is merely society's materialization of the imposed division between the arts and the sciences. As it is, most people seem to believe that one can only be left-brained or right-brained, either logical or creative. However, as we've clearly seen in these past couple of weeks, the coexistence of both is far from impossible.

Read more!

Section 2

INSERT INTRO!!!

I found this week’s topic to be of particular interest to me. I am very interested in neuroscience and most interested in what makes us uniquely human. I took a neuroanatomy class (Psych 115) that left me feeling unsatisfied in my quest to figure out what make us tick.

INSERT BODY!!!As the class progressed, I began to feel that every human emotion, every human action, every human though, can just be reduced down to chemical reactions happening on a microscopic level. I do not believe that we are wired that way. I cannot believe that everything human in the world is caused simply because of chemicals. I cannot believe that the only difference between a killer and a saint is just the hormones in their brain. I believe fully in free will and that we each have control over our actions. I believe that we control our brain, and not that our brain controls us. There must be another aspect of life that we have not discovered yet. I believe that this aspect must be consciousness. Consciousness is an aspect of science that has never been explained. This neuroanatomical approach did not answer the questions that I had about consciousness.

Although Dr. Scerri made his views about the separation of science and religion very clear, I disagree with many of his statements. First of all, my own personal objection to his claim that science lasts forever while religions and politics and world views come and go: Many religions have been around for thousands of years. I cannot think of one scientific fact that has been around for even half as long. I believe that science is the thing that is constantly changing. I don’t think you can ever put your money on a scientific law because it will be disproved by tomorrow. Religion is relatively stable and doctrines of many religions have remained largely unchanged for many hundreds of years. Science is volatile and any observation can turn it on its head.

Anyways, enough of that rant. On a separate note, I was watching an interesting show on 2020 about faith. Here’s the link to an article about it: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3157321&page=1. In the studies, scientists were taking brain scans of people with and without faith and were comparing them. Those of the subjects who were religious had abnormal brain activity that was not present in atheists. There was no conclusive theory about why this was the case. They also did brain scans of Christians who were speaking in tongues. For those who are not familiar with this concept, this is when a person believes that they are being filled with the Holy Spirit and this causes them to speak in a language that they have never learned before. Sometimes this will manifest itself in an actual, comprehensible language, but more often, it just sounds like gobbledy-gook. The scientists injected the people with a radioactive tracer and then took brain scans of them while they were speaking in tongues. They found that no part of their conscious brain was being activated. The people who were being studied claimed that this proved that their words were being guided by God. Even if this is not true, doesn’t it certainly claim that our brains are not the only thing that is controlling our actions?

Read more!

Michael Nguyen #7 Thanks a lot, my mind is now a mess

I decided to look more into Richard Dawkin’s theory about memes since he’s often mentioned in my biology classes but not in any great detail. Half way through the article I got the sense that but he was using it as a basis to attack religion and the concept of faith but not sure why. An interesting point is that in a historical time frame, one’s genes may not survive but one’s ideas can persist for a long time. “We should not seek immortality in reproduction.” However, it is often that our immediate family members are the ones that help to carry on our memories so there is still some vested interest in physical reproduction.

At the end of the week, I felt more lost than ever trying to think about the connection between art and science. The concepts we covered were more philosophical and difficult to grasp. I had Dr. Scerri for a chemistry class and knew that he was interested in music and the philosophical aspect of the periodic table. Most of the time Dr. Scerri talked about the differences between artists and scientists without addressing anything that would help us to understand how to bridge the gap between art and science. Ultimately, I would like to figure out how make myself a better scientist by utilizing concepts from the art world. I won’t suggest that he make another appearance in future quarters since in the end not much was accomplished.

Read more!

Allen Wang Week 7 - Nano Tech

Nanotechnology has been a great influence to the brain and other parts of the body. With nanotechnology, humans have advanced beyound our natural capabilities. With the possibilities of improving ourselves with nanochips inside our brains, we can supposely increase our memory and thinking capabilities. The human can be really an advanced species if nanotechnology was advanced enough to work. Right now, nanotechnology is just a futuristic idea that woudl really advance the technology world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RwZIioDyl0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Oc071AlZQ&mode=related&search=

The part one and two respectively of the nano technology documentary. It is very interesting in a sense that it explains how nanotechnology affects our bodies. Nanotechnology affects us to the very molecular level. Yet, this documentary contains very bad audio and is sometimes hard to understand so I even though I watched the the documentary, it is probably not worth watching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxilVKlFlo8&mode=related&search=

This video, more scientific, is more interesting and appealing. It presents the future of computers with the help of nanotechnology. With nanotechnology, computers become a home factory in which one can create almost anything just with the simple nanocomputer machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pNbF29l9Zg&mode=related&search=
This video shows the help of nanotechnology with soldiers. Though it is still underdevelopment, it will help advance humans beyound our limits of technology currently. With nanotechnology, our future is limitless and we can advance the human race many levels over.

With the advances of nanotechnology, there would most likely exist much controversy on whether nanotechnology would help the quality of life or woudl it jsut destroy life itself. Well, as always, we are always afraid of change yet humans as a race would eventually learn to accept this new technology into our lives.

Read more!

Week 7 - Daniel Baker - Consciousness and Culture

When applied to computing and the arts, the realms of the conscious and subconscious can be seen to be important themes. Sigmund Freud’s work with the unconscious, though debated, opened up a whole world to be explored. Within the world of art, the introduction of the Surrealists in lecture I found particularly interesting, as I am also learning about them in my European Film class. Their underlying theme was that art and literature should explore the unconscious, and even to the extent that their artwork became products from only the subconscious. A popular tool for creating art was the form of automatic writing, where the artist would simply write down everything he or she thought in a train-of-thought kind of mode. This, the surrealists thought, would eliminate the amount of conscious thought that goes into a work, and only the products of the subconscious would remain. In Dali’s only film, he and another Surrealist filmmaker, Luis Bunuel, came up with the “plot” to their film Un Chien Andalou using this process. They then discarded everything they had written down that seemed unsurprising to them, leaving only what they felt to be the true products of the subconscious. What was created is considered to the perfect example of surrealist thinking: a crazy, dreamlike sequence of irrational events, inspired in large part by the discoveries of science.

It seems interesting to discuss the conscious/subconscious issue in regards to art in science, because while they seem to go hand in hand, it appears as if they still remain independent fields in this area. They both influence each other, but I do not seen any direct combination of the two cultures. Mostly it seems as if one acts as a bridge for the other, for example, the idea of the MEME describes the scientific-like characteristics of transporting a thought or product of the arts, but there is no interaction beyond just using the other field as an input for the other. The science of how the MEME is transferred does not mesh with the artistic way the MEME is created; the two sections of the process remain independent.

The issue of the collective consciousness plays a vital role in both science and art, and seems to be a halfway point between the two. For instance, the image of Earth from space (an art product) managed to change the collective consciousness in the same manner that the atomic bomb (a scientific product) did. The collective consciousness also provides inspiration and can be reflected in both scientific research, like sociology or the idea of the rhizome, and artistic endeavors, like the work of Paul Cézanne. There is also a fine line between explaining a property of the collective consciousness and creating something that affects it. One example would be how the Beatles went India to study Eastern ideas of consciousness in order to bring them back to the United States and make a comment on the current ideas surrounding consciousness (i.e. drug usage), but by presenting these ideas, the band succeeded in changed the collective consciousness of culture in America. The issue of quantum physics where one is essentially defining and affecting a subject by observing it comes directly into play in regards to this issue, ironically describing the process that occurred when the principle was released to the public.

Read more!

week 7-vrisela zepeda

This week’s lectures were by far the most interesting of all. The lectures dealt with the mind and the consciousness. Some of the material was hard to understand and grasp because it was so much but overall the lectures were very good and interesting. When I first found out about what we were going to be discussing this week, I thought this material should not be that hard to cover, since my first quarter here at UCLA I took a neuroscience class which dealt with the mind, body and consciousness. This did help me understand the material a bit more but still some of the concepts were like “WHAT!!”

Throughout history people have been trying to find a definite definition for consciousness and mind many people have different interpretation of these words. To me, what the word mind means is a place where one keeps all of theirs thoughts and emotions. However consciousness is a bit more difficult to understand and define. To me that word means to be aware of your surrounding and being able to make sense of what is going on around you. These concepts are still a bit confusing.

This week’s lecturer I thought was very interesting. Dr. Scerri’s presentation was very interesting because he got his point across; he made his presentation very clear. What I like about his presentation is that he was very sure of what he was saying, even when professor vesna challenged his ideas, he stuck to his point and it made sense. Another reason why I enjoyed Dr. Scerri’s lecture was because he spoke about how LSD can make you achieve a much higher sense of self and consciousness, which I thought was very fascinating. Overall I thought this week’s topic of consciousness and mind was very enticing even though till this point some of the topics discussed in class are still hard to understand and make sense of them.

Read more!

instinct vs. judgement

I would like to continue discussion the debate that happened on Tuesday. To rehash what the arguement was about, the class was discussing what those initial guiding thoughts are which pop into your head when you were under a certain circumstance. (ie. meeting somebody new for the first time) Victoria was suggesting that these initial thoughts might be instinctual and that they might in fact occur without any prior knowledge and arise from the complex biology of our minds. I would like to reiterate that while they might be coming from the complex regions of our mind, I do not think that they are instinctual and I think that they are judgments made in our mind subconsciously.

About 10% of our brains are used to do tasks, such as me typing this blog in and the calculated, coordinated motor movements that are required to do so. So what is the other 90% of our brain doing. Some scientists think that most of the energy that our brain uses is actually invovled in maintaining a basal level of activity. Why this basal level of activity is necessary is unknown. In fact, for the most part the function of 90% of our brain is largely unknown. However, it is most likely doing something, and for that matter someting rather complicated.

While I try not to use Wikipedia as a siting I think that the definition, defined by wikipedia, of an instinct is largely correct. If you want to take a look you can go there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct . Basically, instincts are endogenous behaviors. Some examples of human or animal instincts are migrations and courtship. However, the most defining part of an instinct is that these behaviors are not learned. They are defined by the genetic material which makes up the brain and they do not require and type of learning to develop. A fruit fly could never watch its parents court each other, but its instincts will tell that fly exactly what pattern and what frequencies it should flap its wings at in order to court the opposite sex. To me, these are what instincts truly are.

In class I was arguing that those initial perceptions that pop into our minds, while lightning fast, are not truly instincts. I do not think that they are because I think that they require some sort of learning in order to have occured. I would like to define them almost as a Pavlovian response. A pavlovian response is when a physical event is associated with a behavioral response. For example, if a dog was trained to eat after hearing a bell ring, whenever the dog hears a bell its mouth would begin to salivate. I think that those initial perceptions are very similar. At some point in ones life, they associated a particular response to a particular fashion style, environmental factor, or anything else. When such situtaions arise, I think that humans respond based upon what they had associated with that event at one point or another in their past. For example, if you had a bad run it with somebody wearing a hat, whenever you encountered someone new wearing a hat you might respond negatively even without "knowing it".

I think that this debate gets even more interesting because it begins to encrouch on free will. If we are trained by our past experiences to respond or feel certain ways, do we ever have true unbiased, opened-minds to evaluate any particular event. Or are we always biased by what has happened to us? In this manner, do we ever truly have a free will?

Read more!

Week 7 - Jacob Karp - Two Cultures Forever Divided & A Higher Consciousness

The Daily Bruin article “Double Lives” leads one to believe that there are those individuals out there who are competent in both the arts and sciences even here on campus. This seems to be a step in the right direction in terms of the problem brought to our attention the first week of class with C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” article. However, after this week I am skeptical to believe that the two cultures can ever truly be bridged and linked due to what a pride and mentality characteristic to each culture. This week really illuminated the idea of the “two cultures” with guest speaker Dr. Eric Scerri. Dr Scerri is my personal favorite guest speaker we have had so far this quarter not solely because of the content of his lecture but more so because of how well he and Professor Vesna illustrated the gap between the two cultures even among those who are making true attempts to bridge them. Dr. Scerri is the first guest speaker we have had the opportunity to listen to who hasn’t been an artist open to the sciences but rather a scientist open to the arts. Dr. Scerri’s rational and factual mentality clashed with free and instinctual thought endorsed by Professor Vesna. I’m sure C.P. Snow would respond that the answer exists as a compromise in the middle of the two. It seems as if the thought methodology of whatever one’s sole and primary interest is be it science or art (regardless of the individuals bridging of the two) is the dominant method of thought processing. Bridging the two thoughts is almost impossible because one’s primary outlook is going to inevitably going to interfere with their outlook. Dr. Scerri’s affinity towards hard facts along with theories to expand thought will always be his naturally assumed way of thinking just as Professor Vesna will always chose a more instinctual choice of action based more on what feels right or good.

That aside I’d also like to talk about Dr. Scerri’s discussion about drugs allowing one to escape their physical environments and reaching what may be identified as a “higher conscious state” in which thoughts and worries regarding one’s physical surroundings can be abandoned. LSD was mentioned by Dr. Scerri and upon further researching I found that the drug has a history of being used in religious and spiritual reflection by allegedly allowing the user to reflect and make choices without any outside influence but rather solely what their psyche wants. It has also been theorized that LSD allows one to sort out repressed memories and self-acceptance by allowing the person consuming acid to address issues purely by their psyche alone without any other imposing factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD . I found this incredible interesting because I never thought of drug use as a means to achieve a higher uncorrupted sense of self and consciousness, and is another reason why I was very interested in Dr. Scerri’s lecture.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 7 - Dualism

Ever since the days of Descartes, the idea of dualism has existed. Dualism, according to Descartes, is the idea that the mind and and the body are two separate entities that exist separate from each other. The body's sensory inputs are not to be trusted, as the only truth (and legitimate stimulation) comes from within the mind, not from outside.

This idea was, and still remains, quite controversial. Critics of the idea of dualism talk of the uselessness of the mind without the body and vice versa. While our senses can be fooled (this is a scientifically accepted fact), they form the truths that we live by. Without sensory inputs we would have no frame of reference and would be completely inadequate. In this same sense, without the mind the body would not function - it would be like having a mouse and a keyboard without a computer. Sure, there will be inputs from the outside world but they serve no purpose and cannot be processed.

Stelarc and Orlan are two contemporary artists who address this issue and ultimately both end up criticizing the idea of the mind/body split. Stelarc's works ultimately revolve around his proclamation that, "the body is obsolete." This is directly in sync with Descartes' ideas, but the underlying irony of his statement is that many of his machines which attempt to manipulate the body's interaction with the outside world do not function properly. Ultimately, he is not saying that our bodies are obsolete but that they are not efficient.

Orlan takes a slightly different approach to the idea of dualism. While she is on the same page as Stelarc in her belief that the body is useless, she goes about critiquing such by manipulating the body in ways that make it indecipherable. She is, in essence, not proving that the body is obsolete but that it is merely a canvas on which our minds project themselves.

Read more!

Section 3 Week 7 LSD and Consciousness

This week’s guest lecturer Eric Scerri was effective in bringing up the independence of each discipline (Art and Science) and offering a challenge to the extreme of merging the two disciplines. I found his discussion of conscious and different planes of consciousness intriguing. I enjoy discussing what exactly consciousness is and whether a theory of consciousness can be formulated, however I feel like talking about drugs and planes of consciousness; Of course this takes into account that consciousness is a separate entity or emergent property that we have not fully described or even discovered yet.

On the base level we have the consciousness that comes from the input and output of our senses. It is basic stimulus and response. Music makes us feel good, food satisfies us and tastes good or bad, and sex stimulates the brain’s pleasure centers. Arguably all animals possess these basic physical functions. Since these functions are necessary to survival and stimuli for the physical exist all around us, all people have an intuitive and natural understanding of this plane of consciousness. We understand that fire hurts, we understand that it is better to arc a crumpled piece of paper into the trash can than throw it forcefully, and we know that jumping off a 20 foot platform will cause of damage. You do not need a college education for this. From our birth, we know nothing and need to experiment. We do not know that fire is hot, nor do we understand how to throw something, and we certainly do not know that jumping off high objects will cause us harm. We are innocent to the laws that govern this new realm and learn them because they are “easy” to consciously work with and pick up.

Next is a plane that transcends what senses we feel. It is the plane of thought and imagination. It is interesting that in this plane it is possible to forget about the base senses. I find it hard to think and let the mind out to play if I have music playing or if there is some other outside stimulus acting on my physical being. The next logical step is to completely remove the physical and look at the mind as a singular entity. We come closest to this when we dream, when the mind is let out to wander. Our brain does not shut down or even slow down like the rest of our body. Rather, it becomes energized and the constraints of the physical and all that we have learned in the first plane of consciousness deteriorate.

It is interesting to think about dreams as a true reflection of the mind. Elements of the visual, the aural, indeed all of the senses come to play in our dreams. However, these elements that we have garnered in the physical world mix and match in extraordinarily weird ways. They mix in ways that we would never have thought of.

Due to the constraints of this blog space I have to keep extrapolating without necessarily transitioning into thoughts, so I apologize. So let us extrapolate (I love that word) some more. Scerri mentioned the use of drugs as a shortcut to higher states of consciousness. The higher states involve these dream worlds and imaginations, perhaps even the “oceanic feelings” that Freud mentioned in Civilization and its Discontents. So you take some L.S.D. Immediately you experience things in the physical world that were existent only in your dream worlds and imagination. These experiences are intensely real as well. In fact, when you are high, the plane of consciousness of the physical that you intuit and understand has different laws and different properties. Take the movie the Matrix. By plugging into a network and having your higher levels of conscious manipulated, does the reality that you experience become real, while your body sits in some sort of stasis, in some pod somewhere on earth while you live and operate in a different plane? When you take drugs are you directly tapping into the “real” mind? Scerri implied that this may be the case and it is certainly a strange idea to entertain.

Anyways, here is a cool video on LSD and consciousness. Pertains somewhat to Scerri’s discussion of drugs and consciousness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PHCUhXc9nLo

Enjoy. Pay attention to the morphing of meaning when Hoffman explains his acid trip. It is not a change in physical property but that of attached meaning.

Read more!

Alexander Yeh, Week 7, Unrealistic Views of Art and Science

Of all the guest lecturers so far this quarter, Eric Scerri was by far the most effective. Having a scientific background, Dr. Scerri was the first lecturer that I completely agreed with. Many of the lecturers this quarter showed how art and science are not completely independent of each other in that many modern forms of art rely on scientific developments and that science depends on art to inform the public regarding scientific contributions. I completely agree with this dimension of mutual dependence between art and science. However, to say that art and science are esentially the same in that they both rely on intuition without reasoning is something that I cannot agree with. The fields of art and science are very different.

One of the distictions between art and science that Scerri mentioned that I would like to elaborate on is the idea of progress in science. In science, progress is generally though of as the introduction of new theories that can better and better describe the physcial world. New theories depend on older, more basic theories that are observed to be true so many times that they are generally accepted to be true. Thus, a scientist cannot create new theories regarding the possibility of creating fusion in a resonant cavity without first understanding the basics of nuclear reactions. Thus, science builds upon itself to more completely descibe all phenomena in the physcial world. In art however, someone who has no formal training and has no idea what has been done in the past can easily create a masterpiece.

Because of this difference between science and art, the process on innovation in science and art is entirely different. In order to create a scientific theory, one must have at least basic knowledge of the characteristics of the physical world based on experimentation. A scientific theory is a synthesis that can describe to an degree better than the previous theory experimental data. Therefore, with only instinct, it is impossible to formulate a scientific theory. What may appear to some artists to be instinct is in fact the result of scientific intuition based upon years of observing physcial phenomna. Of course, the irspiration of the theory many be found outside of science, but it still relies on the intuition that an idea fits a given set of characteristics.

An interesting article regarding the bridge between art, science, and philosophy can be found at http://d-sites.net/english/rubensbeuys.htm . One interesting article idea that the article brings up is the amount of the people in one of these three fields posing to be one of another field. For example, the author writes:

Genuine artists often display an more than acute insight in the deeper stirrings of the human soul or in dimensions of reality that escape normal people or even scientists.

Thus, Dostojevsky conjures up someone who is driven to murder, not out of obvious motives such as hunger or jealousy, but out of a feeling of guilt! However, such deeper insight does not turn Dostojevsky into a psychologist. In order be a psychologist, Dostojewsky should put forward propositions about the relations between guilt and crime, like Freud. And that is quite another matter than telling a story about someone who indulges in crime out of guilt.

This brings up one of the topics brought up during the lecture regarding how popular culture and art has obscured the views of science regarding terms such as “quantum.” One other term that I think that art and popular culture has obscured is the idea of nanotechnology. Now, nanotechnology is being viewed a millions of tiny robots. This concept is more in the arena of MEMS than nanotechnology. Nanotechonoloy is far currently and in the future will be realized more in material science, specifically in composite materials.

Read more!

Week 7- Julie Fair- A Definition of Consciousness

In this week's lectures professor Vesna addressed the concepts of memory and consciousness. Memory is a relatively concrete subject, well studied in science, relatively well defined by society. Consciousness on the other hand, is almost impossible to define. It is difficult to study, at least in isolation, and is not well understood by society. After attending this weeks lectures and witnessing the debates spawned from the subject of consciousness, I have realized more than ever that in many ways that arguments surrounding the topic of consciousness are, for the most part philosophical arguments. Every one has their own idea about it, and it seems that no matter how long a group debates about it, no real conclusion is ever reached.
Of course in my head, I think I have a pretty good idea about consciousness. Until I really start to think about it. Then I begin to realize how difficult it really is to define. So I enlisted the help of Merriam-Webster and even the dictionary seem confused about an exact way to define consciousness, listing five slightly different definitions, some with multiple parts, clearly attempting to capture the complexity of the concept. The one I liked the best was: "capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception."(http://m-w.com/dictionary/conscious) However, this definition, while useful, still does not capture the complexity of the idea. By scientific standards it would be correct I suppose, but it cannot begin to encompass all that consciousness is. It cannot even account for all that we discussed in lecture this week.
I thought it was very important that professor Vesna addressed not only this perspective of consciousness, but also the more abstract connotations of consciousness, like consciousness arising from groups, the effects events have on consciousness and the higher levels of conscious attained through drugs and meditation.
This week in discussion we talked a bit about the consciousness that arises from a group when we discussed the global consciousness project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) and the idea of memes, such as the Wilhelm Scream. It reminded me a lot of Casey Reas' talk about swarm intelligence. When I think about the concept of swarm intelligence and I look at the definition I cited above, it makes me very curious about what groups are capable of. To what extent does the outcome of a groups actions reflect the wills of the individuals? To me it seems that swarm intelligence is the average or mean of the wills of all the individuals involved. And as I think about this I begin to realize that this is very similar to the way our body is structured. All the cells in our body can be seen as the individual participants in swarm intelligence. It we are to look at swarm intelligence as a form of consciousness, then what does that say about the individual consciousness we experience? For me, this brings about a whole new set of questions surrounding the consciousness idea. It brings into question the concept of duality we discussed in lecture this week. To what extent do the cells of all parts of the body influence our consciousness, our decision making, our actions, our will? Is our body really just a small scale version of swarm intelligence or is there something else there? What role does our brain play? Is it just reacting to the input of all the cells of the body or is it, in fact, directing those cells actions? Or, to deviate from the scientific approach, is consciousness something outside of all this. Humans are thought to be the only organisms that experience consciousness but surely if it is only a version of swarm intelligence on a smaller scale then other organism, that are organized the same way we are should also experience consciousness. So we're back to square one and once again it has turned into a philosophical debate.
I also benefited from Professor Vesna's approach to the idea of consciousness as the way events affect our consciousness. She talked about the effect of seeing the earth from space for the first time and the impact of the concept of quantum mechanics. It made me realize how much everything we experience in our lives affects and helps develop our consciousness. You really aren't the same person that you were five years ago. This is especially apparent to me now, at the college level. Up until now all my peers and I have experienced a relatively similar education. We have all taken the same required courses to graduate and all took the SATs. Here in college however, our paths are diverging and every new course we take is helping to develop our unique consciousness. Aside from major events like those professor Vesna mentioned, even each class we take affects our consciousness immensely.
I also appreciated professor Vesna's addressing drugs when discussing the concept of consciousness. Drugs and their function and effects are something I am very interested in. They are part of the reason I am going to pursue a psycho-bio major. I think that drugs have a tremendous impact on consciousness, and for me it is fascinating learning why drugs produce the effects they do scientifically and then comparing this to the experience of a user. I thought Dr. Scerri's statement that drugs were a short cut to states of higher consciousness, that were temporary and jumbled was a very new and interesting way to look at both drug use and consciousness.

Read more!

Boris Lipkin - Week 7 - The Mind

This week’s classes were by far the most exciting and non-conformist so far this quarter. Professor Eric Scerri was a very different then our previous guest speakers. The one thing that really set him apart from the rest is that he is a first and foremost a scientists. Sure, he’s a musician on the side also but that’s more of a hobby, he is definitely a scientist. The other speakers that we’ve had talk to us about the connection of art and science were artists who dabbled in and used some science and technology in their works. Scerri is the opposite as he is a scientist who dabbles a bit in art. This is where it gets interesting. All of the other speakers in this class did not contest any ideas that Victoria was telling us about but if anything tried to expand and build on them. But even on Monday Scerri challenged Victoria and both were very unmoving in their arguments about the role of instinct and intuition in modern society.
As befitting a scientist, Scerri of course disregarded instinct as causing nothing more than prejudice and insisted on gathering cold hard facts and analyzing them before coming to a conclusion. Like an artist should, Victoria stood her ground on how trusting your instincts because they are usually right could lead to good things most of the time. Why this argument and the general overview of the other speakers in this class amused me was because in The Two Cultures this is exactly what C.P. Snow was saying. Both Scerri and Victoria and their respective ideas fit into the two stereotypes that Snow had in his lecture. Of course, Victoria and Scerri disagreeing also fits into the stereotypes that artists and scientists can’t agree. It reminds me of the line in the essay that went something like “the two sides used to smile at each other politely across the way, now they just make faces at each other.” Those aren’t the exact words but the message is pretty clear. While all of the artists that have spoken to us this year agreed with Victoria and furthered her ideas, Scerri the Scientist went against everything that she was saying.
As for my own opinion on the issue, I think both are right but that the context is what matters. Of course, while doing research on new medicines for example, it is vital that you test out all aspects of it and make sure that it does what it does, you can’t just be like “well, I feel like it’s going to work.” On the other hand, in an artistic setting it makes sense to be instinctive because that creates the raw and unobstructed art that can be so powerful. As far as instinct and intuition goes in other areas I personally tend not to trust it too much. Victoria mentioned that she looks at a person and her intuition tells her something and she goes with it, well I tend to agree with Scerri on this one and think that that is more prejudice than anything else. Sure, intuition is part of what makes a first impression but not letting the person even utter a word, to me, is a little too much. Overall, the class this week was exciting and novel because we had a speaker who brought new ideas and challenged what Victoria has been teaching us.

Read more!

jose fernandez, week 7, neuroscience

This week’s lecture on the mind and consciousness was quite interesting. I had a bit trouble understanding some of the things but overall it was good. I was able to relate one of my past classes to the topics that were addressed in the first lecture. During my first quarter I took what was then a new class: neuroscience 10. This class was an intro class into neuroscience which included the mind, memory, and consciousness. From what I remembered these three aspects are quite complicated and hard to understand.
The mind can be represented in many different ways. I see it as a space where all thoughts come together to form a single response. It’s like a system that self assemblies and creates one thought as a whole. This info is stored in the memory, which is divided into three types. The first is working memory, which only works within a span of several seconds. This type of memory is used when for example someone is taking an IQ test. Then there is short term memory. This memory functions from minutes to weeks. This is like the info that stays for an exam and then leaves. Finally there is long term memory. The thing that makes this memory different is that not only does it last a life time but that will only remain if things have a tremendous impact on one life.
Then finally consciousness. To me this is the hardest aspect to understand. I mean there must be many different ways to represent consciousness. I see it as the ability to be aware of everything around you and being able to interpret what these things mean.
The guest lecture was a quite good this time. I was able to understand Dr. Scerri because I had taken his course last quarter. His presentation was quite simple and effective. I just wished he had played his guitar, he’s a good player. I guess this is all I got to say about the interest I found in this week’s lecture.

Read more!

Derek Ganong - Week 7 - mind expansion and exploration

This weeks lectures were very interesting because they covered a much broader and more conceptual realm of thinking than previous weeks. Some specific vocabulary was introduced that was then emphasized by the TA’s in sections. This interrelated vocabulary consisted of the “Meme” the “Rhizome” and the “Noosphere”.
From what I gathered, the concept of the Meme was coined in 1976 by the biologist Richard Dawkins and its definition is “a unit of cultural information that can propagate from one mind to another in a manner that is analogous to genes”. Some Memes that are present today are the iPod, Led Zeppelin T-shirts (and classic rock shirts in general), the Razr cell phone (and soon to be iPhone), etc... In the case of the iPod (in my opinion), the Meme has been a good thing. Meaning that the representation of that Meme works well and it beneficial. However, it is not always the most beneficial Meme that survives the longest, it is the one that can propagate the fasted and most efficiently. An example of a Meme that has a negative impact is the SUV, and large vehicles in general. They simply are not economical, not environmentally friendly, and most people who drive then do not need them.
There was significantly less information about the Rhizome. Wikipedia’s definition for Rhizome was that of a sub-surface, horizontal root that a plant sends out as a means of vegetative reproduction. This could be an analogy to the network of human information and ideas (as related to the Noosphere) or it could represent the identical goals or cultural information of seemingly unrelated Memes that appear in different geological locals of the human milieu.
The Noosphere, according to wikipedia, is the “sphere of human thought” and the theory behind it is that, just as the emergence of biology and the biosphere altered the geosphere, the emergence of human consciousness and the Noosphere is altering the biosphere. The Noosphere can also be defined as the transhuman consciousness. In other words, the Noosphere is the combined human perception of our impact, interaction, and relationship with nature (the biosphere).
These words will probably come up as part of our final assignment and any comments that anyone has or would like to add to my description of these words and their relationship is welcomed and encouraged.
With the heated debate over consciousness and human perception, I thought back to the lectures on artificial intelligence and networks. I came across an article in scientific american that talks about how neural networks function, how artificial neural networks function, and how they differ from digital computers. This article was extremely interesting to me because it provided solid bases for all of its basic claims (like what is meant by consciousness, intelligence, etc...) and was written by the author of “Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Networks”: Mohamad Assoun.
The definition of an artificial neural network is “a parallel computational model that comprises of densely interconnected adaptive processing units”. In laymans terms, this is a many relatively simple processors that are all linked and designed to solve individual parts of problems on their own and then combine their answers towards a generate an output based on a complex relationship with an input. Theses large parallel computing systems are designed to provide modeling for nonlinear and dynamic systems where a complex relationship exists between the input and its output. In contrast to a standard personal computer, which has a single complex processor and execute calculations who’s outputs have simple relationships to their inputs, a parallel computer would be able to crunch numbers extremely fast (a plus in genomic calculations and other scientific and mathematical ares). As the article states, “a very important feature of these networks is their adaptive nature”. This is where learning takes the place or programming and is vital to the intelligent functioning of an artificial neural network. The adaptation process is very similar to the way in which learning occurs in the brain “via changes in the synaptic efficacies of neurons”. However, all parallel computers used today still execute static programming that has to be inputted and cannot be altered by the machine itself based on its interactions. The systems are simply used as extremely efficient calculators in the present. With that said, parallel machines May have been inspired by biological neural models, they are nowhere near the adaptive nature of their biological counterparts. In my opinion, we cannon create an intelligent artificial neural network until we can break the bounds of objective programming.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=8B4338BA-E7F2-99DF-32025F46795812AD&ref=rss

Dr. Eric Scerri’s lecture was very inspiring. What he said about “the higher state of consciousness” and mind expansion had a significant impact on me. While a lot of what he said did not have an empirical factual basis, it all made sense to me. I’ve been doing alot of thinking about mind-altering substances and higher consciousness previous to his lecture, and what he said on Wednesday really hit home for me. Scerri said that the psuedo-higher states of consciousness that drugs cause you to attain can be gotten to as real higher states of mind expansion by a non substance abuser. For instance, he recommended a book by Dan Levitn called “your brain on music”. Being a musician myself, I have experienced this mind expansion through jazz improvisation. Thats why I still love music and continue to make it. The truly great musicians (Miles Davis, Clay Jenkins, Freddie Hubbard, Michael Brecker, etc..) have also felt this. Many of them were so driven to attain it permanently that they resorted to drugs, except the drugs only gave them a psuedo-state of mind. They are truly the great musicians because they were able to attain this mind expansion permanently, or at least while they were making music. Thats why everyone emulates them and wonders how they do what they do (did).
His lecture was inspiring and I left the room with much more clarity in my mind on the topic of mind expansion. I think that Scerri’s clarity of thought and expression comes from being both an improvisitory musician and a scientist. His clarity in both sight and insight should be something that we all strive to attain.

Read more!

Week 7: Some tid bits about the week from Justin Nordheim

I ended up missing Monday's lecture due to an extended mother's day celebration so the focus of my post will be on Scerri and his discussion/debate with Victoria. I have had Scerri as a teacher. He is a great teacher with a well put together class. Also, it is very clear he believes heavily in science and is also a devout atheist. He believes that science can explain everything. Specifically, the topic of "progress" was discussed and I would like to offer my opinions on the definition and how it is applicable to various aspects of the universe as well as human culture. As a scientist myself, I understand completely where Scerri is coming from; science makes progress because it can build off itself whereas art, for example, arguably does not progress, but new forms are being used and our understanding is getting better. I believe in a slightly different view of the word perhaps different from both Scerri and Victoria. Einstein believed heavily in the idea of relativity. The universe exists in the mind of the individual, and two individuals can experience a different type of reality or manipulate time using these principles. I believe relativity also applies to the idea of progress. For example, science is used to describe all the fundamental components of the universe, both large and small. It focuses on using mathematics to describe processes. However, science cannot describe "ideas" and the evolution of culture. Therefore, as science "progresses," so does human culture. For anything to progress, knowledge needs to be gained or manipulated. Art does just that: when new art forms are created, and even new works of art, our understanding of art increases. Without the first mud hut created millenias ago, architecture may not have advanced to what it is today. Without many of the masters, art may have taken a different direction and classical forms may have never been created. Ultimately, I believe it is important to consider the relative characteristics when discussing progress. Science has made progress because knowledge has been gained. Art has made progress because knowledge has been gained.

Well, glad I got that off my chest. As one of the 5 people that showed up to discussion, I was presented with the idea of "memetics" (missing the monday lecture). This served to be our main topic for the discussion. What I found most interesting is how true they are to society and that although they appear conceptual, they appear everywhere I look. I found this image to be helpful, as well as the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics.

In reading various articles (I read the top 3 that popped up when typing "memetics" into www.google.com), I discovered how similar "memes" are to cells. For example, many different types of cells exist: bacteria, skin, mesodermal, etc, etc, etc. Also, many types of memes exist considering there are at least 5 WAYS to transfer information (sound, touch, sight, smell, taste) and thousands of subdivisions within those 5 ways. This comparison furthered my belief that the theory of memetics holds true. Also, I found it very interesting that when one person transfers a meme to the other, the person transferring the meme keeps the meme in their mind. Thus, it is a form of replication similar to mitosis which results in 2 identical cell types being formed. I'm not sure if these were brought up monday, but I found Dawkin's principles to be very interesting as well as important when considering memes: "Dawkins listed the following three characteristics for any successful replicator:
copying-fidelity:
the more faithful the copy, the more will remain of the initial pattern after several rounds of copying. If a painting is reproduced by making photocopies from photocopies, the underlying pattern will quickly become unrecognizable.
fecundity:
the faster the rate of copying, the more the replicator will spread. An industrial printing press can churn out many more copies of a text than an office copying machine.
longevity:
the longer any instance of the replicating pattern survives, the more copies can be made of it. A drawing made by etching lines in the sand is likely to be erased before anybody could have photographed or otherwise reproduced it."

I will end here.

Read more!

Annie Wu- Week 7

I liked how this week’s topic dealt with the ideas of consciousness and memory, such as surrealism. The areas of transhumanism and dualism really stress and enforce the notion that art deals with both the body and mind, instead of just one of the two. However, it seems as if this week, we focused more on the mind and its ability to perceive the world in different ways. We dived deeper into the power of the mind, and we were exposed to how much depth there is in the mind. Basically, we saw how our thoughts affect our lives. Earlier, we studied how art was demonstrated through the body, such as through the works of Stelarc and Orlan. I feel like their art focused only on the human body, because of the physical works they implemented directly onto their bodies. Now, we are shifting towards the human mind and it seems like art is being associated more with abstract things, such as thought and memory, instead of just the physical human body.

Personally, I thought it was really interesting to learn about memetics, to see how cultures and behaviors are passed on and spread around. Like how Gregory Bateson states in one of the articles for this week’s reading, art is “based on presuppositions.” I think I do agree with this viewpoint, because art really seems to be based on assumptions and beliefs. Art is built on ideas that are passed on throughout time, and artists just continue to build and expand on these ideas. Looking back on the different art periods that occurred, each one of them was some kind of reaction to its preceding period. For example, for a while, art was traditional and focused on classical forms, trying to imitate and embody reality. However, modernism was later developed, and artists began to stray away from the norm and the conventional. Instead of depicting depth and volume, they actually reverted back to flattening out the figures in their work. Even though artists started this movement by “rebelling” against what was traditional and accepted by society, they were actually just bringing back an artistic method that had already been used. It was not like they invented flatness—it was always there, and the artists just revived the idea.

I found this article online to be pretty interesting, as it analyzes how art relates to the memetic structure. In the article states, “The artwork serves to focus the attention of the programmed conscious mind, while the root meaning (thought virus or memetic structure) embedded within slips unnoticed into the subconscious.” So basically humans are already somehow preconditioned to think in a certain way by society and their surroundings. When they see an artwork, they will form varying perceptions and opinions of the artwork, depending on the “programmed memetic structures” in their minds. However, the “deeper” meaning of the artwork will still slip inside their minds. So basically, there are two ways to analyze and understand artwork. One is to have a surface understanding of artwork, where we judge them based off of the knowledge we absorbed from our surroundings. The other way is more inconspicuous, I suppose, where the actual meaning of the artwork just enters into our subconscious, without us realizing it. Maybe we do not focus on this root meaning in our subconscious because we are too preoccupied with our conscious understanding of the artwork.

Read more!

basic instincts - james zavala- week 7

The class has clearly shifted from the perspective of art to that of psychology. This weeks topics were interesting in the sense that they focused a lot on the unconscious mind. I did not really understand the point of the industrial revolution and the fact that the professor showed a picture of the world and the fact that people had barely seen it in 1969. It then made sense. People have just recently achieved a global consciousness and it is interesting that all it took was a picture of where we are. Also with the industrial revolution presentation, it seems that she is trying to make students understand that there has recently been a consciousness in the world of electricity and the things that are possible because of it. She then talked about the atomic bomb and the way the people took it in different places. It was almost disgusting to see that America celebrated it and the things that it did embarrass me. C’mon, electing a Miss Atomic Bomb seems almost like a joke being how ridiculous it is. It was interesting to know (because I honestly did not before) that people study the behavior of particles in the quantum level to predict the behavior of much bigger things including the solar system.
There was then the talk about the meme being that it is something that is popularized through people. People are why things both succeed and are well known, or if they perish, and I am glad that there is actual term that identifies this. I like the analogy that the professor did on the rhizome. It was simply a plant which lives in the root and then the upper part which pops out of the ground will die soon after its born. It is almost like if she is saying that people are the roots and that the trends are what stick out of the plant; although it stuck out, it died and soon after something else will be born while all along the root (the root is analogous to people) of the plant continues to live forever. She then rapped it up referring to the noosphere, which is the mind in the style of the atmosphere and biosphere, which is true our mind is affected by out surroundings.
I have been really thinking about this concept of being instinctual and the more that I think about it the more that I disagree with myself. Initially I sided with the professors point that there is something that will let you know what to do or feel. Then I also think about it and realize that this feeling is brought upon from past experiences and that they all relate to something we have seen or done. Then the guest speaker came along and spoke about the conscious mind and what it is. He stated that it is basically awareness of thinking and gives examples like the guy who solves equations in his head by relating them to shapes and the fact that people remember things based upon their five senses. And then I think, yeah sure you can relate things to part of your senses but then again what about if it is your first time out in the world and you know nothing and have had no experience. When animals are born, how is it that they know what to do even though they have had not prior experience. Man is no exception to this rule, a question that I leave to ponder that I myself cant answer is, if everything has an explanation due past experiences then to what experience, or anything else for that matter is the explanation that a new born baby will suck on a mothers buxom for nurture?
here is a neet link.

Read more!

Week 7 - Art, Our Surroudings and Interpreting Emotion

http://http://www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/bloomsburyhtml/bio_fry_modernart.htm

When discussing the topic of surrealism in lecture, I began to question the idea of art versus everyday life. I was also compelled to talk about the debate between the feeling provoked when doing/veiwing art.
I feel that art is the task of visually interpreting the correlation between intangible metaphors and forms we know in life. Art conveys pure emotions simply to respect the emotion as it is in a whole. Through art, it is possible to lead, in a sense, a double life; one actual and one imaginative. Moralist, however, only appreciate emotion if it results to useful action. Imaginative life has no responsive action.
After viewing an art piece, it is not necessary to respond to the artworks emotions in real life. Art, or the imaginative life, can be completely separate from real life. Artists, Roger Fry , says that“Art, then, is, if I am right, the chief organ of the imaginative life; it is by art that it is stimulated and controlled within us, and, as we have seen, the imaginative life is distinguished by the greater clearness of its perception, and the greater purity and freedom of its emotion.
Within these two worlds, there are very different kinds of perception. Actual life involves instinctive reaction to certain situations. But in the imaginative life, ther is no “responsive action” in art and we can escape from the moral responsibilities of reality. It is possible to experience whole conciousness with a focus on the “emotional aspects of the experience”( Fry 76). Art allows a viewer to focus on a particular emotion. Real emotions essentially numb an individual because it is impossible to get caught up in one particular emotion with all the responisbilites of everyday life.
“The consciousness of a peculiar relation of sympathy with the man who made this thing in order to arouse precisely the sensations we experience” (Fry 80).Because art is extremely descriptive, it has the power to communicate the artist’s emotions directly to the viewer. Art is not just an imitation of real life but it is a reaction to the emotions that reality provokes.
According to Fry, real objects have a sense of “order” and aesthetic objects( like art) encourage a feeling of variety. Art creates a perfect harmony of this order and variety to create something beautiful. The beauty in art is not to be classified as traditional, because it does not matter what is being represented in a particular piece. Art’s main purpose is to arouse emotion. Because art accomplishes such a daring task, this is in itself beautiful. In artwork, beauty is measured by “the appropriateness and intensity of the emotions aroused”(Fry 80). When these emotions successfully display the values of imaginative life, art “[possesses] purposeul order and variety”(Fry 80).
For art to have ultimate purpose, it must have unity in this variety. If the viewer can find a single emotion simply within the boundaries of the artwork, the artist has accomplished this goal.
Moralist, in contrast to Fry’s argument, believe art is literally a waste of energy and sucks essential emotions out of the viewer, that are more useful when applied to everyday life.
I feel, however, that it is impossible to need a lot of emotions in actual life. In reality we experience too many feelings at once that it is impossible to grasp every single aspect of emotion. With art, we can, for a moment step out of our skin and watch what we feel within ourselves. No matter what are beliefs are, most people have similar values. One of these values is the ability to experience pure emotion.

Read more!

Kiesha Nazarenus- Week 7- psychart

"Think for yourself and question authority" -Timothy Leary This week proved to be quite interesting both in topic, lecture and guest speaker. Who would have known that a chem Professor could have so much interest in the arts? I don’t know about you but I may just have to stop by Kirkoff Monday night for a cup of coffee to sneak a peak at Scerri’s band. I think this Monday’s heated debate was the first that I have experienced so far in college. While centered between the two professors I couldn’t quite tell if it was based on academics or personal pride. I don’t know how others felt but I was just a little tense listening to the conversation and I had to side with our professor as far as her ideas went and to a certain extent because I felt like she was being ganged up against. Regardless though it’s interesting to me how it is not an uncommon thing for professors on our campus to have multiple interests that span from academics to the arts. Xarene sent our section a link to an article published in the daily bruin that was about professors who had academic interests as well as interests in the arts…one of the highlighted professors did salsa! It seems like more and more now we hear about how healthy and beneficial it is to have interests and participation in multiple fields of interest. I personally know that I probably wouldn’t be able to live quite as peacefully if I wasn’t able to spend equal time pursuing dance as I do my academic classes. Life should be lived with balance, and this is just another way to balance a person out.
A couple names and topics caught my attention in Monday’s lecture. Once of which was Dr. Timothy Leary whose quote and picture can be viewed above. Reading about him through a couple of different sites was pretty interesting and tying in what our professor spoke about with the ties to The Beatles, John Lennon’s song ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’ on The Beatles album Revolver was influenced by Tom Leary and his work on The Psychedelic Experience. His popular saying “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out” was later explained by him as "'Turn on' meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. 'Tune in' meant interact harmoniously with the world around you - externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. Drop out suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. 'Drop Out' meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity.’” After reading this I couldn’t help but smile…the man tried to prove that LSD was something we should all do…why not I suppose.

http://www.leary.com/
Another man who got my attention was C.G. Yung. I think many people, whether they admit it or not, would like to know if their dreams really have any meaning at all. Yung believed “that dreams may contain ineluctable truths, philosophical pronouncements, illusions, wild fantasies, memories, plans, irrational experiences and even telepathic visions.” How do we know if this is true though…is it just left to the believer or how much evidence is there??
And lastly, I think I’m going to have to put aside Elle magazine one day this summer as I lay out at the beach in order to read Blink. It caused quite the commotion in class yesterday so before I make any comments I better read and research so that I’m ready to stand strong in the case that I get caught up in a debate.

Read more!

Claire Benson-Week 6-Psychobotany

Due to the extreme non-greenness of my thumbs, I decided on a whim Saturday that my time would be better spent attending the Pychobotany opening at Machine Project than going to work and being a productive member of society. While I’m not entirely sure that I made the correct decision, it was one of the most enjoyable openings I’ve ever been to and I did discover many highly useful things about both myself and the plants with which I live. For instance, if I were a tea, I would be lavender grey earl. Also, I not only learned what shy plants are supposed to be, but also what they are when placed in a harshly lit environment and surrounded by people wielding a variety of pseudo-scientific instruments. Apparently they no longer respond to soft caresses after being prodded by a dental hygienist’s tools all evening.


So, the subtitle of the exhibit was Revolutionary Breakthroughs in Human/Plant Communications and, while there were some creative ideas about cultivating relationships with the plants in your life, I have to admit that I thought the title was supposed to be sarcastic until I visited the website yesterday. To be perfectly honest, I had felt transported back to my sixth grade science fair. There was one piece that had three plants labeled Positive, Negative and Control, and viewers were supposed to project said feelings on the three little guys. They gave examples of what sorts of things to project (i.e. sunlight and water or smog and drought) and, I suppose will examine the differences in how the plants survived at the end of the exhibit.

However, even though they had a note posted above the nice beveled dark wood shelves which stated the process of the experiment and their commitment to conducting a valid experiment, the placement of the plants in the space meant that they would not be receiving the exact same light, air from outside the gallery, etc. Basically, it fell into that weird art space where I wish I had been given a better idea if the creators really felt that such observations would yield some sort of legitimate scientific result or if were more just an exploration into the idea of such interrelations. The lack of any sort of synthesis of information or literature pertaining specifically to the exhibit at the opening made me wonder if we were indeed supposed to be reading the stacks of random books (some which had obviously never been opened before) on druids and homeopathy lying around to understand what was going on. The “potion” (i.e. tea) station won me over as it not only was the only area that provided me with refreshments, but a “leaf-let” (ha) that explained the artist/tea lady’s feelings on plant/human relationships (“Herbs are the best friends you could ever have. They give and give and give until your cup of happiness runneth over”). Any confusion aside it turned out to be all in all an entertaining and worthy expedition.

Read more!

Furthering the Gap, Andrew Modlin, Section 2

After six weeks of Desma 9, I am a little uncertain about how some artists have been linked to science and technology. When I was looking for a class to sign up for this seemed like an obvious choice. I have always been really interested in art and science, as I have mentioned before, so this would appear a good choice. Yet after seeing a lot of really interesting art there are still some problems linking the two fields of study.

When coming into this class I though there would be a stronger tie between the two fields but it appears to be more of a struggle for acceptance. It is constantly looking like science is trying to push art away from it, and the artists are becoming more insane and doing more outrageous things against science therefore causing a vicious cycle where scientists dislike artists.

When I was reviewing for the midterm I looked up the Steve Kurtz lecture. Since I had a class conflict I had only seen part of him actually speaking so I was basically watching the lecture for the fist time. He just sounded so disrespectful and ignorant to the laws of any country. He basically had problems with every country that he went to and he continually took the blame off himself. Now while I agree the case against him is ridiculous, he only exacerbates every situation by screaming by arguing with so laws that a rational. By doing this he is only making his argument weaker by giving the government more reasons to dislike him him.

To me it seemed like Kurtz projects were obviously disobeying the laws in the areas he choose to do the performances in. Then he is surprised when some one gets mad at what he is doing. In the project were he put an LCD screen on a boat, he obviously did not go though the proper regulations and ended up causing unnecessary mass panic.

Stelarc seems to be another artist that while trying to contribute to the connection between art and science, he has actually only made it worse. His theories that the human body is obsolete are blod thoughts that don’t have any backing. He tries to prove it by making machines that can do the work for the body yet they are somewhat unsuccessful. Also he does his tests on himself, something that a real scientist would never do. He is adding a third ear to himself not to help for fix anything but just to show that it’s possible. While I am not one to say what is art or not, he defiantly does not bridge the two fields. By doing his tests he only makes people more faired of the artist community and makes the scientific community want to be tighter with their information.

This seems to be the problem with the too fields of study. By aggravating one another and the surrounding people they will never be able to get along. That is why in this class I was hopping for some better connections but it only seems that it is becoming harder to fussed the different areas of study. I defiantly really liked the way math was used to create computer-generated art. I would be very interested to learn some type of programming as a resource.

Read more!

Kelley Lonergan - Week Six - Section 1

So far we have looked at different topics in science, and have related them back to art. We have surveyed the realm of the “two cultures,” and will continue on our journey.
I must admit, when I signed up for this course, I thought there would be some art practice, and I was looking forward to the thought of doing art projects throughout the last weeks of winter quarter into the spring. I think the most difficult part of this course is its broad scope. I feel like I am trying to grasp a monsoon with my bare hands, and am only slowly amassing water.
Though my hopes for an art project will most probably lead to nowhere, I do hope that we cover some contemporary art, like what is happening right now in the digital world. New Genres is, well, new, and I think it would be really interesting to see where people are pushing envelopes.
I think something that is really a hot topic is internet art, the whole idea that the web is one giant art museum. I may have written about this before, but the idea that a whole new world is open to us is something to be aware of. We have new social worlds, information worlds, everything at everyone’s fingertips. When Time magazine published a faux mirror on the cover of its Person of the Year issue, we should start to realize that something in our society is shifting.
I have been introduced to a lot of internet art during the last few years because my brother practically studies it for a living. My brother gets a lot of flak for what he does, and there are times when I doubt the genre, but sometimes I wonder, is this the future?
My brother has introduced me to a site called “You’re the man now dog,” or ytmnd.com, where anyone can make a single-paged website showcasing a sound loop, a gif or text, without serving any real purpose. Computer nerds and computer artists alike love this stuff.

Though badly-pixelated computer icons and gradating rainbow text may not be my favorite thing, this internet culture seems like it might be on the rise. The website rhizome.org is a part of the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York. The organization is specifically for the connection of art and technology, as it says right on its home page. The site does have an “open” source part, but it also has an exhibition part, where new digital artists are put to “salon” like standards.
Where is this new genre heading? Is it a passing fad, or will it become a part of art history? I think a lot depends on the acceptance by “the people.” Much like how we can create different selves with the Sims and Second Life, there is another world on the internet completely separate from the one we live in. In this world, there are internet artists with internet fame and internet followers. But once we translate this world into the “analog” world, things do not quite match up.
Who knows if internet art will last. Only time will tell if the connection of art and technology will someday be accepted as a legitimate art form.

Read more!

Section 3

INSERT INTRO!!!

As I was brainstorming for this weeks’ blog, I was pondering the broad definition of the word art and how the work encompasses not only the fine art but also the practical. Not only is art influenced by science, but also ad agencies, engineering think tanks, and product developers.

INSERT BODY!!!My boyfriend, a mechanical engineer, is currently taking a philosophy of design class. I was intrigued upon reading his lecture notes that he was learning about, color, balance, unity, and composition. I would have assumed that these words would have been reserved for an art class, not an engineering one. He explained to me, that when designing a product, engineers must factor in aesthetic appeal. This single factor alone often influences whether or not a consumer will buy a product.

The first product I could relate this concept to was cars. Certainly, automobile engineers must consider the form of the car, as well as its functions. In fact, in our image conscious society, I would guess, that a flashy yet unreliable car, would be more popular, than a modern and dull design.

Another fascinating thing that he shared with me from his class, what is the concept of the golden ratio, also know as the Fibonacci scale. Apparently, if the ratio of the dimensions of the object is approximately 0.618, then the object is more appealing to the eye. This “golden ratio” also applies to such things as numbers, positions, angles, space, colors, etc. I tested this idea on several of my products, and found it to be true. My pack of gum measure 3.9 inches by 2.5 inches, to give a ratio of 0.641. My DVD case measured 4.3 inches by 7.5 inches, to give a ratio of 0.573. Although these numbers are not exact, clearly the designers knew about the golden ratio and implemented it into their work. This shows a clear connection between mathematics and art. Although the Fibonacci scale is a purely mathematical concept, clearly advertisers and product developers have utilized it to increase the aesthetic appeal of their wears.

On an unrelated note, I focused on the topic of generative art for the midterm. I noted that C.E.B Reas’s piece, Process/Drawing, was an example of generative art. I stated that generative art in its very nature bridged the gap between the arts and the sciences because it changed the focus of the artworks from the “what” to the “how.” Isn’t this exactly what science at its core tries to accomplish? I quoted Philip Galanter from his interview when he says that generative art changes art from a noun to a verb and is a piece where an artist sets up parameters and then allows the artwork to create itself. I said that Hans Haacke’s Condensation Cube is another example of generative art. I compared and contrasted these two pieces by saying that Process/Drawing creates a bridge between math and art where Condensation Cube creates that same bridge between art and the biological sciences.

Read more!

--- Week 6 --- John “Matt” Ko ---

The midterm didn’t turn out as badly as I had originally feared. When I first heard that the midterm was going to be an in class essay, I sort of freaked, but when it came down to it, it wasn’t that difficult to write. The grade I’m going to receive, on the other hand, is another story entirely. --- Week 6 --- John “Matt” Ko ---
I’m just going to use this time to talk about my view of the class so far. I think that the class overall has been an eye opening experience for most of us. A lot of the things I’ve seen in class are new to me, and though I don’t always fully enjoy the things presented, they are still valuable to my learning. One thing I can’t get over is how much I enjoyed Casey Reas work. I have nothing but praise for his work. And I was so lucky to have him show up on the midterm slides! He was probably the first to introduce the whole concept of generative art to me. Before that, I don’t believe I had ever encountered a piece that “made itself.” I hope to someday achieve the same level of fusion between art and science that he did.
However, I also see some things in class as irrelevant to what we are studying. I’m not saying that these things aren’t relevant at all, but I have a very hard time drawing the connections. For example, I don’t totally understand why we were studying artificial intelligence. Maybe if we were talking about the realm of generative art and artificial intelligence’s part in it, then I would be able to draw the line. But when we discuss the current levels of AI, or the different projects currently being worked on, and all of the advancements there, I feel less like I’m in an art class, and more like I’m in a science lecture.
And I still don’t quite understand how Stelarc can be categorized as an artist. To me, his projects and ideas sound more like science experiments than artwork. It seems impossible to me to make the connection between building yourself a third ear and calling it art. Maybe creative expression, but not necessarily art. To me something needs to be visually appealing in some way to be called art. Dance, design, photography, all of these have visual appeal inherent to them. Music would be the exception I suppose, but instead you would have audio appeal. To be frank, there is nothing appealing about Stelarc’s work. Maybe I have more of a conservative view on what is called art and what isn’t, but I guess I can’t help it. I’m very open to hearing explanations of why Stelarc is art, and if the argument is convincing enough I’m willing to accept it, but until then I will still be of the opinion that he is irrelevant to the subject matter of the class. I hope not to offend, but I hold that opinion pretty strongly.


PS So sorry this entry was late, but I've been having inexplicable technical difficulties this evening... :(

Read more!

Megan Daalder - WEEK6 - MICROBES IN SPACE

Apparently we may have killed life on Mars in the process of searching for it, according to an article I read recently. Last January two scientists wrote a paper saying that ‘life-detecting equipment’ from VikingI and II, sent to search for life in Mars in 1976, may have actually killed it while searching for strictly carbon based lifeforms.

The discovery of “extremophile” bacteria in underwater thermal vents on Earth, has raised awareness of lifeforms we didn’t even know existed, which has caused scientists to re-think what they’re looking for in the search for extraterrestrial life. They throught martian micro-organisms might contain a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and water, and some researchers now suggest that silicon may be important componant of molecules essential to life on other planets. These non-carbon based lifeforms have been grouped in a category called ‘weird life,’ and several research groups have begun serious research into other possible chemicals that might give rise to life sustaining molecules.

The author of the article writes:

To plan a search that has a decent chance of finding whatever may be out there, we will need not just technology but imagination.

creativity and imagination are hugely important in every field, and the creativity required of scientists should not be overlooked. i imagine, however that there's a danger being too imaginative a scientist, because everything must be proven and there's a cap to the potential to imagine. i'm no scientist and that's not a definitve statement by any means, it's a hypothesis. i don't really know what the chances of finding non-carbon based life are, but i think it's interesting how rigid a theory becomes, and somehow, we're slow to learn that reality is not finite. often it is scientists who've proven that the limits are beyond what we would have expected, and i wonder how much farther the limit will be pushed.

Read more!

Week 6 - Daniel Baker - The Human Instrument

A very interesting artist that I discovered through the blog we-make-money-not-art.com is Michael Waisvisz, who was featured on one of their latest articles. Basically, Waisvisz explores the connections between the human body and sound, creating new and innovative ways of experiencing and generating sound. It seemed to relate to the class and our discussions with Sean Dockray, who introduced the synthesizer and its outlets for creative expression in terms of art making.

One of his works, entitled “The Hands,” uses touch sensors in a glove like device that users wear in order to actually touch sounds. It described that given a clean recording of a sentence, users can feel the separations between the words and modify the recording by moving your hands and grasping the words. The device bridges a gap between two very different senses that normally would not have such a strong connection to one another. The contrast of mind and body is directly addressed by combining the two: the sound as a product of the mind (as it can only be registered in a mental form) and the sense of touch as a product of the body (as it is physical and visceral). This shift in sensory experience would probably be confusing at first, but I would imagine that because it deals with simple sensory interaction, that it would not take long for us to get used to. The separation of mind and body shrinks when artists are able to harness the basics of each and force them to interact together.

Another interesting piece that Waisvisz has created is the “Cracklebox.” It comes in many forms but basically arose from the artist taking the back of synthesizer off and directly touching the circuitry in order to create new sounds, completely bypassing the keyboard. Waisvisz noticed that the keyboard, found in all churches in the form of an organ, had connotations that he wanted to separate from and so distanced from it as far as possible: using the body as an instrument. Here the human being (an organic, or “wet” material as Roy Ascott puts it) fuses with technology to operate and influence the device. Apparently, this concept has actually been patented by Microsoft, so I am curious to see what comes from it. Various forms of the Cracklebox have been created, taking on the forms of clothing, where wearers manipulate the clothing they wear in order to make sounds, to sets of dishes, where users create noises by pretending to eat with silverware and by touching the plates and putting forks in their mouths. These devices take normal movements and interactions with objects and create a completely original sound track to them. It seems as most combine the senses of touch and sound in order to make the art, once again relating to the mind/body issue. But the human body as an instrument is a very interesting concept, for it is true that our voices do make sound and could be considered instruments, but the possibilities of creating new instruments out of ourselves by technological modification adds a new “harmonic range” to our bodies. The potential offered by the body as a range for creation is endless, and the range just seems more vast when adding the modification of technology to the calculation.

Read more!

Mayra Perez/Week 6/Midterm Week

I walked out of class Wednesday with both a feeling of relief and great anxiety. From weeks 1-5, I felt that I had a pretty good grasp of all the concepts and artists that were presented in class. There was no doubt about that. But come midterms week, and confusion hit me. I felt that I didn’t really understand the connection between the concepts and artists.

Studying for the exam was very much a long and tedious process. I never really thought about how, say, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin related to, say, Reas’s work and other artists. I read through the piece and never bothered to relate it to what Professor Vesna was lecturing on in class.

In many ways, I feel that I made the midterm a lot harder that it really was. I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out how to study for the exam, how to structure my in-class essay for each and every item on the study list. I also invested a lot more time on some artists than others, like Steve Kurtz, for example. I think that I tried working out a potential essay for his work. That ended being a waste of time.

Overall, I think that the midterm could not have been made easier. However, I think that I made it a lot more difficult and therefore did not do as well as I could have. I don’t really know what the outcome will be.

Insofar, Desma 9 is very exciting. I have learned a great deal about unconventional and extremely intriguing topics. I am really anticipating the last half of the course.

Read more!

week 6 - michelle baba, "random reflection..."

Hm... open topic...

ok, well, regarding the midterm artist selection (Casey Reas, Stelarc, & Ken Rinaldo), I thought it was a pretty good variety of the different topics that we studied - though I must admit, I think that it would be quite challenging to write five to six pages on Rinaldo's Autopoiesis. Personally, I was all about Stelarc's Hexapod, despite the fact that it never functioned properly. It reminded me a lot of Doc Ock's creation in Spiderman2 (minus the whole artificial intelligence turning him into an evil villain) & I am facinated with how Stelarc's work ties in with the topic of transhumanism.

I wonder about when, and where, we will draw the between using robotic technology to save lives & abusing technology to prolong lives. Today, science and medicine is working toward the common goal of finding cures and solving problems that humans come across in life. However, what if we are able to prevent the breakdown of the human body? If we have the knowledge and the ability to prolong a person's life, ethically speaking, how can we deny doing so? We would undoubtedly choose to save someone that we know or care about, yet the consequences for doing so could have a far greater impact on mankind as a whole. What if keeping ourselves in the dark is possibly the best option...

I just realized that my blog for an art, science, and technology class is now about benefitting the human race and such... I suppose it shows how everything can be connected:

art = robotics/technology --> transhumanism? --> good or bad for mankind?

Anyways, overall, I think that this class covers many interesting topics that I would have never looked into before. Technology is becoming an increasingly important (and dominant) factor in our lives (look at simple things such as the internet and cell phones) and it is good that this course is open to students of all different majors. Though it wish that we spent more time on certain topics, and went into more detail on some works and artists, I think I have gained some valuable knowledge. However, one of my suggestions/comments: it was very difficult to sit in a lecture for two hours taking notes without a desk. Maybe this new room on the fifth floor will be better...

:)

Read more!

Alexander Yeh , week 6 , Reflection on weeks 1-5

Overall, I have enjoyed most of the topics covered in the first half of this quarter. It has been a much needed break to focus on the more entertaining aspects of technology, mathematics, and science relative to all the math and engineering classes I am taking. I enjoyed how this class focused more on the big picture with respect to technologies and their application in art work rather than focusing on how single innovations in technologies are using in art works. It was nice to see electronic systems that I have learned about at almost a microscopic level being interpreted at an artistic level. Even though I am not have not been in the past and am still not to some extent one to appreciate all forms of art, seeing all the artworks done using technology and mathematics has given me more ideas on different ways that technology can be used rather than with practical applications as emphasized in engineering. More importantly, however, I believe that this class has exposed me to issues regarding technologies and alternate visions of the future. For example, the whole topic of artificial intelligence research allowed me to think about the capabilities of programming and whether strong AI is possible, a topic that is never discussed in programming classes I have taken.

Of the artists that have been covered so far, the two that have appealed to me the most have been Stelarc and Buckminster Fuller. I do believe that science and technology have the potential to make the organic body obsolete. The only difference between my view and Stelarc’s view is that I do not think that time has come just yet. There is more to be understood about the human body. Something cannot be declared obsolete until it is completely understood. But in time, there is no reason that the human body cannot be replaced by a mechanical counterpart to extend the capabilities of the human. Buckminster Fuller’s works, however, have inspired me to think more on the possible impacts of technology on humanity. I have been inspired by his creation of a simple structure to help humanity by acting as either a shelter or as a means of controlling climate. I completely agree with his whole spaceship earth idea that the only way that the ship can survive is if all the crew work together to solve the earth’s problems.

The artist that has appealed to me the most has been Orlan. In my opinion, she is either more confused than her he Reincaration of Saint Orlan piece, or there is a higher motive behind her work. In the article found at, http://www.nytimes.com/specials/women/warchive/960707_5051.html, the author notes how every last part, body parts more specifically, left over from her works is preserved and sold for profit. Whenever vials of fat and hair left over from procedures are being sold for profit, something is definately wrong. Also, all the clothing is designed by the top fashion designers. Unlike Stelarc who has a clear vision behind his works, it seems to me like Orlan is no more than a celebrity like Michael Jackson seeing to stir some controversy.

Read more!

Week 6 - Grace Tang

[span class="full post"] The midterm for this class was all right. I knew that the big ones such as either Stelarc or Steve Kurtz was going to be one of the topics for the essay. Interestingly I found out the parts of the themes of these two artists are against each other as I was studying for the midterm. Stelarc called the body obsolete, that it has ended its evolutionary process and cannot go on improving itself. One of the false Eves the CAE warned about in the Cult of Eve was from what I can recall the Robotic Eve. It threatens the real Eve because it separates the mind and the body. It is stated that the mind cannot be separated because that would destroy the meaning of being human.
Technology's impact on humans has been questioned for only a short while. If we do put consciousness on a robot or a machine, would it make it human and will the same rules apply to it as to us? How far would the human body have to go in robotic or cybernetic enhancements to make it not human anymore and a machine?
The first half of the quarter was good in the beginning when I was captivated by the notion of the Third Culture. Then things start to get a bit disconnected and random and irrelevant topics were thrown into lectures that did not have any transitioning from one topic to another.
I think what would make this class more interesting would be to have the students to interact more in the class. All we did was sit in lectures and discussions and scour through websites. Is there anything else on the menu?
There are two websites that center on art which I visit. Deviantart and Phirebrush. Deviantart allows for anything to be posted up online and that means satirical fan made comics of Batgirl. Phrirebrush contains a more professional community of artists. People submit their work and some of it is posted up to view. There are interviews of the artists who usually do it for a living or for part-time work. There's also some fiction and music submissions and websites linking to other interesting places on the internet. [/span]

Read more!

Week 6 RoboEscher

I googled (yes, googled is a verb) "art and technology" on image search and there was a very intersting photo that caught my eye. It was a drawing by Escher, but something was off. The image had been tampered with and an adjustment had been made to the picture. It appeared to be Escher's drawing titled "crystal ball" i believe, a reflection of himself holding a crystal ball but when i enlarged the photo i quickly realized that instead of Escher holding the ball, it was a robot.
I was intrigued by this. I was somewhat lost in what it was that Escher exactly had to do with the area of art technology. I didn't necesarrily make the distinguishment of his role in this area.
I recently began to understand the mathematical form to his art work. And that given the time that he was creating his art, the technological advances(ie stelarc) that we have today werent available.
That is why I found this picture so interesting. The concept of having a robot be the main focus of the piece takes the classical ideas of Eschers work and gives it a modern twist. After writing my midterm on stelarc I have had plenty of time to think over the connections they have with the rest of the art/science community.
Stelarc uses the human body very differently than any other artist i have ever seen. They use the body as a foundation in which to build upon rather than the main piece of art itself. The picture that I found establishes a connection between robotics and the ways of persepctive in which Escher was focused on. Through time, the human body will no longer be in the main focus, but the idea of incorporating technology into our art will become more prevelant. Replacing Escher with a robot makes a very strong statement about the development of art. We are slowly but surely replacing work that has usually been done through human labor with robotics.
It won't be long till the work being done by stelarc won't seem so far out and twisted. We will adapt to the ways of robotics and biotechnology.

Read more!

DESMA9 was a cool class to take - Week 7 - Chris O'leary

The midterm was very reasonable. Professor Vesna pretty much chose the pieces that I thought she would, and I was happy with her choices. I kind of anticipated which artists she would ask about, so I feel like I over prepared because I was so paranoid about it. However, in the long run, I think it was worth it to study everything more. During the first half of the quarter I was unable to study the class material to as great in detail as I would have liked to:

1) Because the amount of material placed on the course site was so overwhelming, and it was intimidating to go through all of it

2) Because of the broadness of the material. Although it should be a nice advantage, it was hard for me to focus my mind on the material since there were so many topics covered.

I am more of a guided learner, who picks up information better when everything is outlined a bit more strictly, so the class structure was harder for me to follow. Nevertheless, as I studied all the material, everything came together. When I read up on the specific pieces listed on the study sheet, I was able to better connect how science and art were portrayed to be linked through the artists’ work.

Initially, I viewed each artist as a separate entity, but as I researched more, I saw how each of them had similar concepts, though portrayed in different ways. For example, emergence was an idea that permeated several of the pieces, and it was expressed in many different ways. For Reas, it was through his mathematical software programming turned art, for Dockray it was his biological ant pathways, for Rinaldo it was his robot sculptures that came alive into a type of living system, and for many of the others, emergence was very much a part of their art. It was really cool for me to finally see the meaning of the art pieces as well as understand why each one chose his or her particular medium. After studying these pieces, I see how effective their art really is in showing how art and science & technology overlap so much and how they truly are intertwined in so many ways and in so many environments.

What really interested me so far in this class is how artists are able to deal with social or ethical issues through artistic means. I think that those mediums are often most effective since you can draw so many analogies from the performances or sculptures. They are so multi-faceted and complex that one can get so much meaning out of something that doesn’t take a long time to view. There is something about visuals and other such forms which stimulate the senses that give the viewer a better understanding of a work. For example the Survival Research Laboratories performances seemed pointless to me at first, but later I saw how it wove in issues about war, destruction, human interaction, the role of machines, safety, etc. There are so many concepts that you could draw from that work, and it really amazed me.

One video I thought was pertinent which I found on youtube has to do with how taste and smell come about. Again, it shows how something so mechanistic such as the chemical underlay of taste and smell can emerge into something much larger such as being able to perceive many different aspects of the world around us. http://youtube.com/watch?v=SsvZsHyvVug

Read more!

halfway through the quarter...

The above image is the work of Los Angeles based artist Lita Albuquerque. Her concept is to mirror the southern constellations through the placement of 99 blue spheres on the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica. International Polar Year Website


As I was studying for the midterm I felt pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of the various pieces that were on our study list. And when I saw Casey Reas's work up on the screen I felt even better. It was easy to write on an artwork and subject that I not only understood but also liked. Looking through some of the blogs I have to agree with one of my fellow classmates; the midterm was fair and very straight forward, but in a class as innovative as this one, the midterm could have been just as innovative. However, I'm not complaining. I'd much rather have a straight forward midterm and final than an extremely difficult one that would make me dislike the subject.

Well, we're done with our midterm and already in week seven! Can you believe it!? With only a few weeks left in the quarter I feel like we've learned so much but there's still much more left to learn. Again agreeing with what some of the other students have written in their blogs there was a lot of information covered this quarter. Sometimes it would be a tad bit overwhelming and a bit confusing as to how it would relate to the subject. Maybe for when this class is offered next time, one or two specific pieces be focused on for each subject to be explored and discussed thoroughly and extensively. Other than that I find the structure of the class to be very organized and well thought out. Each week’s topic is fresh compared to the previous week, guest lecturers are interesting, and the pictures and video weaved into the lectures are interesting and entertaining. Being a “try to save trees” kinda person I also like the utilization of the website for accessing readings, study lists, etc. (But of course a working website is more than appropriate for a Design Media Arts class that is titled “Art, Science, & Technology”.) Overall my experience taking this class has been great. I’m learning a lot in a definitely different way than I’m used to and being exposed to a subject I wouldn’t have otherwise taken.

I’m looking forward to the rest of the quarter. This week’s quest lecturer is Professor Scerri from the Chemistry Department. Being a science major, Professor Scerri’s name is one that I am familiar with, although I’ve never had a class with him. I’m interested to see how a science professor will approach the subject and what he will lecture on. The next few weeks’ topics are even more related to the science that I am studying: biotechnology, cells, molecules, nanotechnology, etc. I am excited to see how maybe I can go into the science and medical field and do art.

So what else is there to say than cheers to a successful first half of the quarter and to an even better second half!

Read more!

Ross Goldman - Section 3 - Week 6

Because I am a design/production Theater major, I am lucky to be exposed to innovative unions of art and science on a daily basis. I am able to draw parallels from almost everything we view in DESMA 9 to my work and studies in the Theater school. In fact, one artist and technologist who works with Professor Vesna has been a key contributor to the Theater sound department.

Designing for theater (scenic, lighting, sound, video, etc.) is a unique process which involves truly creative and artistic abilities. After all, theater is the art of storytelling. At the same time, these designs must be able to be transformed into a physical manifestation. Being able to make this happen within time and budget constraints is most certainly an art.

One interesting design concept seen in the Theater department earlier this year was the sound design in the production of The Libertine. The designer, Jane McKeever, employed a series of microphones, speakers, and digital signal processors in order to manipulate the acoustic environment of the theater.

The system was based on a technology dubbed VRAS, or Variable Room Acoustic System. The technology, developed by LCS and now owned by Meyer Sound, simulates different acoustical spaces by "listening" to a room, applying a digital reverb algorithm to the data, and "playing" it back through speakers, all in real time.

You can learn more about VRAS here:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/applications/church/vras/livingword.shtml

This technology is actually a lot more potent and far-reaching than one might think at first. The ability to completely change the size, surfaces, and architecture of a room, sonically and instantly, is a mind-blowing prospect, and it is already happening in a large number of installations throughout the world. Although the technology was used in the Theater production for purely artistic reasons, it could be used for a number of different applications.

This is just one area of design for theater that is bridging the worlds of art and science. I look forward to seeing new innovations, both artistically and technologically, as I continue studying and working in the field.

Read more!

Kelley Lonergan - Week Five - Section 1

I really enjoyed the lecture by Roy Ascott this Wednesday. Ascott brought in another realm into the cultures of art and science: spirituality. Though I think it is a bit absurd to believe that when computer networks reach a complexity and pattern of neural structures that they will take on a mind of their own, I think the idea is beautifully romantic.
Though we learned in the last few weeks about Stelarc and his rejection of the human body as necessary for life, Ascott brought together the idea of the body and the computer as one. In a way, the computer is an extension of the body.
If one does reject the idea of the eventual “mind” of the computer, we can see the computer as just another prison house to our soul, expanding our possibilities of what we can do, not only as artists and scientists, but also as people.

Ascott talked about the virtual world Second Life in his lecture, where people can become whomever they wish within the confines of the internet. Along with inventing their own external bodies, people using Second Life can also invent their own personalities. Kicking myself because I cannot find the link to the original article, I read a thesis written by Northwestern professors talking about how Facebook does a similar thing, and these computer networks, avatars or not, are not hindering human sociability, but expanding it. The computer has allowed people to make friends and remain friends with people, when before, these interactions were not being made. The computer is opening possibilities.
The only problem with these new possibilities are that we are not open to them. Much like our hesitation with implanted cell phones into the human body, we are hesitant with other human/computer interactions as well. We like what is natural, and I cannot lie the fact that, while I am for retinal implants for the blind, a gratuitous implant such as a cell phone, makes me cringe at the thought.
Even in this class, I have noticed that our society still cannot cope with the merger of art and technology. Our class discussions over Casey Reas in the second week still strike and affect me: can art made by machines really be art? Yes, anyone has access to Adobe Photoshop, but doesn’t everyone also have access to brushes and paint? Technology-based art still takes skill, it is just a skill of a different kind.
ARS Electronica (aec.at) is one of the organizations that is trying to mainstream digital art. The group is currently building a museum in Austria that is yet to open, but will hopefully legitimize the digital art world.

Read more!

Kelley Lonergan - Week Four - Section 1

This week in lecture, we talked mostly about machines. We looked at machines that occur in nature, such as patterns of shells, and machines that live outside of nature, such as talking computers like Eliza and our generation’s Smarterchild. We talked about closed systems, generative art which can occur both in and out of nature. And then, we watched Brazil.
I think Brazil only makes sense in the context of its writers: Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame and Tom Stoppard, the absurdist playwright. I had heard about Brazil for years, but had never actually seen it. Witnessing the real thing was, well, a bit different.
Accurately or not, Brazil depicts a time, perhaps in the future, when machines rule. Though not the focus of the film, the coffee maker, the shower, the toaster, everything that looks as if it came straight out of a Wallace and Grommet cartoon into real life, takes center. Our eyes cannot help but be intrigued by these “thing-a-majigs.” The complexity of these objects is a blatant critique on what we as humans value today in life. We are lazy, and we want a mechanized being to burn our toast, we do not want to burn it ourselves.
But, yet, everything is broken. The background of Brazil seems to be a pseudo-1984, with its abductions, explosions and pesky government agencies. Going so far as showing baby-faced Michael Palin in a blood-covered outfit, Gilliam creates a frightening future.
This weekend I attended the three-day Coachella music festival. The festival always includes art and sculpture, but this year, I was met with pieces that looked as if they came right out of the horror that is Brazil: metal plants were breathing and shooting fire into the already hot desert, clowns were riding rusted bicycles, a giant spider from War of the Worlds created a speckle of shade for the large crowd.
Throughout this weekend excursion, I slowly learned the histories of all of these “contraptions.” Not only were they a thousand percent art, they also served examples as efficiency-run machines: each created their own energy, and come evening, created a spectacle much different than their personas during the day. Some were purely aesthetic; some were elaborate means to a simple end.
An example of a purely aesthetic piece was the sunflower garden. An array of unique five-feet tall metal sunflowers, these sculptures during the day seeked sunlight, their solar panels turning and moving to find the sun. The pieces were interactive because concertgoers could make the sunflowers dance by blocking their sun. At night, these sunflowers lit up, taking their amassed sunlight and turning it into colorful light. Another piece that also used the daylight for a nighttime spectacle were the tesserai coils, which were almost too frightening with power to get to close to.
The rusted clown-driven bicycles were not just supposed to be a frightening performance piece, but actually were meant to make electricity for freestanding electrical outlets. Out in the middle of the desert, the campers at the show could charge their cell phones using these bicycles.
After coming home, a little research led me to the directors of these art pieces: www.globalinheritance.org. The website called for “energy scientists and” as well as “architects and designers” in order to come together for this “EnergyFACTory,” which was not only an art exhibit, but also a tool for environmental awareness. The same organization put together gettrashed.org, which has artists paint garbage and recycling bins.

Read more!

The complexity of the mind

So I think this is a testament to how much I enjoyed Dr. Ascott coming to speak to our class, but I still have been thinking about what he talked about with technology. I think that a very stimulating question that has come up in our class has been whether consciousness can arise from a complex networking of computers. This would help to define what it means to be truly human.

Today I listened to the newest Nature podcast. (For those of you who do not know, Nature is a premier science journal with perhaps one of the highest impact ratings. The articles that it publishes are groundbreaking discoveries that are truly unique.) The podcast was talking about neuroscience and it got me thinking about networking. The podcast analyzed and revealed some new research on a mouse model of dementia. This is a disease that affects many people and as one ages, they lose many memories. The authors of this paper made a mouse that they could induce neurodegeneration in at any time of its life and in any part of the brain. In effect, they could induce dementia whenever they wanted in the mouse. They were able to show that this mimicked the disease because the mice could not remember to complete certain tasks that they learned earlier before they were conditionally mutated. Next, the authors mutated two groups of mice and put the mice into different environments. One group was placed in a stimulating environment where they were surrounded by multiple toys of different colors and texture, with a running wheel, and with other mice. This provided these mice with not only physical and mental stimulation, but also social stimulation. The other group of mice was placed into a small cage without any accessories. These mice served as a control. The authors noticed that when they probed to mice to complete their tasks, that the mice placed in a stimulating environment could now remember how to complete these tasks, while those who were not stimulated still lost their memory.

The groundbreaking affect of this research is that the authors were able to show that our memories are defined by the connections made between synapses in our brain. It is not the nuerons themselves that hold the memories. This is because upon stimulating a mouse that is undergoing neurodegeneration, the mouse could continue to form new synapses and suddenly remember "lost" memories. This research also opens new avenues for targeting therapies for diseases which result in memory loss like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and dementia.

I think that this research has a great connection with our class. I think that in light of this work, there is a core fundamental difference between the internet and our brains. The internet uses servers and computers in order to store information. It does not use how two computers are networked in order to remember information. In this sense, there is a fundamental difference between how computers and neurons are networked. I think that this would be an interesting thing to attempt to mimic in computers and could perhaps provide some new areas of technology research.

If anyone is interested in reading and thinking some more about AI, I found this website which has some interesting information: http://r.hodges.home.comcast.net/MindInMachine.html

Read more!

jose fernandez, week 6, midpoint

This week I took the midterm that I was worried about. I knew it was an essay exam so I was not really looking forward to it. I do not enjoy writing essays, especially when it is in exam form. I cannot get my thoughts together in such short time. Regardless of the time I had to get it done at least 3 pages. At first I was not sure how I was going to study the material, so I just reviewed every piece of artwork on the study list. So I tried to figure out which ones would be the most likely to appear and studied those. Luckily one of those that I studies was Ken Rinaldo’s artwork. It had worked out since I did not have to struggle as much to remember what to write about. Even then, I still ran out of ways to relate his piece to other things. Either way the exam was easier than what I thought it would be.
That same day I went home and on my way there I noticed a new art exhibit at the LACMA museum. I did not pay attention to the name of the artist because the sample artwork that was being displayed caught my attention. It was a picture of a yellow light, looking like a light saver, out of star wars. It was surrounded by the halo created by the lights intensity. I tried connecting it to the class on my way home but I was not able to reach a conclusion, I gave up after the first attempt because I was tired from the essay.
Up to this point the class has been interesting but it has its boring moments. At first I was thinking the class would be more interactive; using computers in the process. Either way it has been good, some interesting subjects. For the next weeks I expect the same things. Art has been getting more interesting as the weeks went by so I guess they’ll keep getting more interesting. I’m not looking forward to hearing Prof. Scerri, he’s a tough teacher.

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 6 - Clap if You Feel Me

There is a brilliance with which artists such as Sean Dockray or Hans Haacke simplify an entire context of complex and convoluted physical systems; as I was hoping there would be a question reflecting the notion of complex biology and implicated inefficiencies on the exam I’ll instead take my time here to outline some candor conclusions on the aforementioned concepts.

At some point in the blogging process I made the point that generative art relies on a concept common in many curricula – what is powerful in the works of Dockray or Haacke is that pieces such as Ameising and Condensation Cube are more or less analog yet readily simulate the same conclusions made from Process/Drawing or any visualization of Mandelbrot’s fractal algorithm. The beauty with which ants follow pheromones and trace across the paper is the product of a collection of free agents (or at least one, considering the nature of swarm intelligence); however, the viewer is treated to the phenomenon of a largely patterned result. In the same fashion Haacke’s cube features the natural process of condensation yet reveals the simple patterns with which nature creates its own art. Were I to compare Dockray’s work to Casey Reas’ in its simplicity, it would be tantamount to changing Reas’ several lines of descriptive processing to millions dictating the movement of each ant. In this regard it is difficult to avoid viewing the physiological form as a computer and highly-developed machine. The realization is enough to stimulate atheism (or a deep spiritual regard for creation, depending on how the pendulum swings). Nonetheless, the examples of Ameising and generative art demonstrate artists working from opposite ends of the spectrum, across different genres to arrive at what might be the focal point: the culmination of human ability to create a machine most similar to itself.

In the complexity of the physiological form however there is an admission made by other artists that humbles any presumption of understanding its nuances – echoing another blog post of late, I am intrigued to point out how artists such as Stelarc, the Survival Research Laboratories and even Orlan point out the chasm between assumed efficiencies and encountered flaws in the human form. This point is well-illustrated in Brazil, where the pinnacle of technological superiority reduces man’s task to paper processing and draining the coffee out of his automatic toast-dispenser. The stumbles of Stelarc’s Hexapod as well as his cumbersome faux stomach do not necessarily imply the validity of his favorite quote, however showcase the deviation between human evolution and our capacity to echo its complexities. Buckminster Fuller looked to beehives for tensegrity, figuring out the most economical use of space within a hexagon; it is in this regard that artists examine nature around them hoping to discover some link in our mind’s evolution and the action of its result.

Regardless of what pedestal upon which we place the notions of perfection or efficiency, there will always exist that roughness in nature that comforts what concerns on which we dote when considering our shortcomings. Mandelbrot’s algorithm itself is beautiful in that it represents an infinite expanse in nature in which the edges are never smooth; no matter how telescopic the lens, the visualized line will remain kinky and rigid. Among an absolute complexity and fabled perfection there may be a golden mean in which the human mind finds consolation in his inferiority and apparent dislocation among the stars.

Read more!

Allen Wang Week 6 - Days of Reflection

Art is really what we define it to be. I searched for art on youtube and the first result was a video displaying imagination at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtzdxseO-gs

This video shows the ability of artists who can think on the spot and draw different and varing art that are both insightful and beautiful. By erasing certain parts of an art, a whole new art can be created. Art is defined by the artist, and the artist can make anything that he or she wants. Yet again, who said that art had to be created with brushes and paint?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLL4khimqrw

This video shows the art created with what we use every day, coffee and milk. Who knew that we could make art with the simplest objects and food. But then again, most of the art that we have seen and analyzed are created by inpratical methods such as computer programming and metal works. With this video, we can actualyl relate more to the art and I am pretty sure that some of us would actually go try some of this coffe art, I know I will. (Even though I woudl fail the numerous times before even creating anything even decent.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XliOko5xrr0

Though I did not find much interest in this as the ones on top, this is very amusing nonetheless. This is art created with metal, probably mercury most likely. This is very interesting because the metal actualyl represent the spikey things that you can find in caves, though I dont know the relationship between them but it seems like a similarity may exist.

At ends, art is what we created it to be. If we can think it, it will be art. Art, though easy as it may seem, is actualyl very difficult to create new and innovative ones each time. Everyone can create great art by drawing the same art over and over again. It is when we add innovation into our art does the art become something very different.

Read more!

Michael Nguyen - 6 - The Technocentric Life

Growing up in a period in which technology has become so ubiquitous, it’s hard to imagine an analog life. Computers and the internet facilitated most of my learning when I was younger since it was easier to look something up on the computer than go to the library and dig out an encyclopedia. I still run dozens of searches through wikipedia each week and discover more information about unknown subject (accuracy is debatable). What interests me is how this sort of lifestyle will change humans on a behavior level since the amount of information that must be processed is greater on average than pervious generations.

I saw this installation by Bill Shackelford which provokes pretty interesting concepts

SPAMTRAP : In real time, a computer accesses email accounts used to collect spam and prints it out and then shreds it. This gives a physical quality to the digital assault we undergo each day.

My gmail is sitting pretty with 4143 spam messages and 43 real inbox messages. The ratio of intelligible input and advertising is starting to get ridiculous especially at some of my favorite website where banner and flash ads take up 50% of the screen. I’ve adapted to becoming pretty good at filtering out junk but is my brain being unnecessarily stressed out?

The Matrix presented me with the concept of “uploading” information and skills into people’s minds in the same matter as syncing music to an iPod. It doesn’t seem to far fetch if the mechanism behind memory and information storage in our minds is worked out and enhanced with electronics. This type of thinking usually involves addressing the future of how education is accomplished which we touched on first week. While we are still far way from a world where colleges and lectures are obsolete, but the progression of technology can be so rapid that society must be prepared to accept radical changes in methods of information acquisition and processing.

Read more!

Justin Nordheim: Art and Technology, Week 6

The format of the midterm was very fair. Although it is easy to complain that it didn't encompass many of the topics presented in class, I felt it was very important to take a piece of artwork discussed in class and connect it to the theme of the class. Clearly, if we can't connect any of the works to the subject of the class (art and technology, the "two cultures," etc.) we have learned nothing. I was not incredibly excited about an essay, but realized that an essay form test (or a new, innovative type of interactive test) could be the only way to allow us to express our ideas. If the test were multiple choice, I feel it would have negated any creativity that could be utilized in writing. Granted, for the midterm, it would either be an assignment or an exam and I feel that since an exam was the chosen way to test our knowledge that this midterm was very fair.

Moving on. Like the other posts, it seems necessary to at least reflect on many of the topics presented during the first weeks of the quarter. Most intriguing to me were the types of generative art as well as robotics. Generative art is interesting to me because it focuses heavily on the idea rather than the created product (because every created product is unique, or at least that chances of two being similar are infinitely small). Robotics also appealed to me because it seems like the most applicable art form. Clearly, our world is facing incredible technology growth and since robots have been essential for the past century (assembly lines, almost all types of machinery, etc.) they will be very important to the future as well.

I decided a good idea was to look at MOMA and view some upcoming showcases and try to relate them to what we have learned. I found some very interesting things, such as Comic Abstraction which hardly makes sense to me but somehow seems important: http://moma.org/exhibitions/2007/comic_abstraction/flash.html. The idea is that comics influence these artists' abstract renditions, which attempt to encompass the ideals that comics and animation have: culture, war and peace, etc. I was further intrigued by an exhibition called Live/Work: Performance into Drawing: http://moma.org/exhibitions/exhibitions.php?id=3497&ref=calendar#events/ . I felt that this related to class because it explored the process behind creating certain art pieces, and how important that knowledge is in order to accurately understand an art piece. For example, Casey Reas's art is all about the programming behind it. M. C. Escher used a lot of mathematics behind his work. I feel it is equally important to understand how the art piece is made (this is incredibly true for the beginnings of modern art such as Neoclassicism, etc.).

Anyways, I would just like to use the last couple words I need for this blog to comment on how much I like how this class is run, and how its unconventional methods (that really aren't that obscure or anything) greatly help the teaching process. All of us have been through the same grueling years of elementary, middle, and high school and have gone to college looking for specialization and more interesting classes because we actually want to learn those topics. My personal experience has shown that some college classes are actually worse than my high school classes, which I really didn't think could be possible. This class, however, uses new techniques, lots of hands on approach, open discussions, and a friendly atmosphere to get its points across.

Read more!

Vrisela Zepeda-week6-midterm week

Ok, so this week was very stressful, it was midterm week. I really did not know what to expect for the midterm. I knew that we had to analyze of piece of work, but I still did not know what to expect how to analyze a work involving art and science. I studied off the study guide, I learned the artist’s name and the work that they did, but it was still not enough material to work with. I guess when it comes to these sorts of things; there really isn’t something concrete to study off of. The day of the exam, when I saw what pieces of work we had to choose from, I thought to myself that I really would not know what to write for those pieces of work, my mind went blank for a while. I was kind of hoping that one of the works we had to choose from would have been that of Orlan. I felt that I could have written more regarding her work; I felt that I could have analyzed her work better, and I could have related more ideas and concepts regarding her work. However, I ended up choosing Professor Reas’ work. Even though I found his work a bit less difficult to write about, I still felt that I really did not do my best to describe and analyze his work more thoroughly.

But enough about the midterm, now to talk about the class overall. I have really enjoyed the class so far, even though sometimes I feel that we are kind of learning the same thing over and over again. I only took this class because my friend was taking this class and this was the only thing that fit in my schedule, however, I was surprised to find that this class was actually interesting. I never would have thought to combine science, technology and art (which is one of my least favorite subjects) together. I never would have imagined that these completely different subjects could be related and combined in so many different ways; I never thought that sooo many artists used science to create unique pieces of artwork, some of which I found to be really cool and interesting, while others were just simply weird. Even though it was not in my interests to take this class, I am glad I did because as a science major it showed me different ways to view art, which is a subject I dislike. I think this class gives science students a different view on art, and it gives art students a different view on science.

One of the subjects, that I think I would have liked to cover more thoroughly, would have been art-involving mathematics. I really found this type of work to be really interesting because I am thinking of switching majors to mathematics, and this just gave me a different view on mathematics.

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 6-Opinions after the midterm

Sooooo, review and a midterm to talk about, eh? Not a whole lot of material to work with… guess I’m going to have to find my own stuff to talk about. Bummer. Well, that’s all right, I suppose. First, though, I would like to say that I found the midterm a bit more challenging than I expected to be due to the limit on length. Even though I didn’t even end up using the full five pages, I was so concerned about it the whole time that… I don’t know where I’m going with this anymore. Plus, I surely don’t want some 200 page minimum to result from what I say. No bueno.

Okay, so just for a starting point, I Googled “art and science.” The first thing that came up was the Art and Science Hair Salon. Out of curiosity, I checked out their most recent hair show and realized how terribly ugly their hairstyles are. In case anyone is looking for an edgy haircut, beware of these styles. Here’s a link:

http://www.artandsciencesalon.com/experience.htm

Now that we’re past that unpleasantness, onto something cool. I’d have to say that my favorite known application of design and technology is auto design. So, here’s a link to a YouTube video of the 2007 North American Auto Show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RSEhlQEJLY

There’s some amazing stuff there. Does it bum you guys out that the prototypes hardly ever get translated into visually similar, functional cars? I wish that just once the body of a prototype would be used with a technologically engine to make totally awesome, totally affordable cars. It just makes me so angry that all the big car companies excite you with all their amazing looking cars, then bore you with their lineup when the new models are seen driving on the street. On this note, why can’t cars that look like Ferraris and Lamborghinis have decent-not racing/performance- engines come with a price tag similar to that of a mid-priced sedan? I would totally be up for a mediocre performance form a car if it were just to look like a Lamborghini. Come on car companies!

Okay, I lied. My favorite application of art and science is plastic surgery- not car design. But car design does come in a close second. I mean real plastic surgery, by the way- not plastic surgery Orlan style. Someone needs to tell that woman to get with the times and realize that plastic surgery is no longer shocking. I like good, old-fashioned makin’-hot-people-hotter plastic surgery. Okay, that description doesn’t help my argument. I just what plastic surgery is able to do for people. I know that there are way too many sixteen-to-eighteen year old girls running around talking about how their new boobs have saved their self confidence and social status, but I really do believe in the ability of surgical procedures in boosting the self confidence of those who seek it. This was not meant to be an advertisement in any way, but, since I’m on the subject, if anyone needs a good surgeon, come talk to me. There we go. Now I can’t be accused of advertising. Sweet.

Read more!

Anna Marks Section 3 Week 6

I think this class is very interesting and it provides a lot of information to obtain, but at the same time I feel somewhat overwhelmed by all the information and topics that are so quickly discussed. It’s sometimes hard to figure out what to write about in the blogs because there is so much information thrown at us during lectures and guest speakers and it’s hard to group everything together into one place.
Since this week’s blog was a free topic, I decided to do the typical thing and google “Art + Science + Technology”. What I found was quite interesting. The first website was called “ Intersection of Art, Technology, Science and Culture” and it outlined different artist’s work that integrated technology, art, and science. It reminded me a lot of the topics that we covered in class, like kinetics and robotics, artificial intelligence and body and medicine, but there were many other interesting topics like virtual reality and computer media. Looking into the virtual reality topic I found and interesting project called “ Liquid Mediation” by Margaret H. Watson. It is a program that creates liquid movements and allows the viewers to think about the process and the world in new and exciting ways. It is a good bridge between art and science because the beauty of the program allows the audience to think in different ways besides mathematical and scientific terms and allows them to think about the world and the way things work.
Here’s the website for Watson’s work:
http://www.aec.at/en/center/project.asp?iProjectID=11872
Here’s the link for the first website with all of the different topics and projects:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/%7Einfoarts/links/wilson.artlinks2.html

Another interesting topic that I wanted to look into was the relationship between Moorish Art and architecture and MC Escher’s work. I’ve always admired MC Escher for his intricate drawings and perceptions of the world. I had no idea what Moorish art was so when I researched it I was fascinated to see that I was actually very familiar with the Moorish art style because I have tiles in my outside shower that consist of images based off Moorish art. A lot of math is involved in the drawing of these tiles and pieces because each of the sections are exact opposites of each other. It is very similar to MC Escher’s drawings and now precise and detailed they are.

Read more!

Duy Phung -Week 6 -Polymer and the Art of Microencapsulation

The class has been great so far. We have seen many artists using current advanced technology to present and enhance their ideas and works. Since I’m biochemistry major, I’d like to use this opportunity to introduce a useful type of material science: polymer and one of its versatile applications: microencapsulation.
Polymer is a high molecular weight organic compound, natural or synthetic, whose structure can be represented by a repeated small unit, the monomer (e.g., polyethylene, rubber, cellulose). Rubber was first discovered by Columbus’s crew around 1493-1496. The sailors saw natives of South America and Haiti playing “caoutchouc” balls, which were made of dried juice of some trees. In 1770 Josheph Priestley termed the word “rubber”, which later was a generic term for materials with highly reversible elasticity, when he used it as an eraser of pencil marks. In 1839 an American named Charles Goodyear successfully discovered hot vulcanization, which allowed setting the shape, of rubber with sulfur. In 1938 just before World War II, world production and consumption of natural rubber boomed and reached 1.4 million tons. In 1989, world consumption of rubber of all types was over 13 million tons yearly. Today the range of rubber products exceeds 40,000 items, and most important application is of course rubber tires in car industry.

Microencapsulation is a process by which tiny parcels of a gas, liquid, or solid active ingredient, which is referred as the core, internal phase, or fill is packaged within a second material (shell, coating, or membrane) for the purpose of shielding the active ingredient from the surrounding environment. These capsules, which range in size from one micron (one-thousandth of a millimeter) to seven millimeters, may have multiple walls. The preparation of a microencapsulated product is something of an art, primarily because of the broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines they encompass, as well as the interconnectivity of these disciplines. as Asajo Kondo asserts in Microcapsule Processing and Technology:
“Microencapsulation is like the work of a clothing designer. He selects the pattern, cuts the cloth, and sews the garment in due consideration of the desires and age of his customer, plus the locale and climate where the garment is to be worn. By analogy, in microencapsulation, capsules are designed and prepared to meet all the requirements in due consideration of the properties of the core material, intended use of the product, and the environment of storage...”

Microencapsulation is always directly involved with polymer. The applications of microencapsulation are widespread, and the most common ones are carbonless copy paper and pharmaceuticals. In a complex process used to make carbonless copy paper called coacervation, the core is first dispersed as tiny droplets in an aqueous solution of a polymer such as gelatin. The difficulty lies in the fact that the core material has to be immiscible in the aqueous phase. Therefore, physical chemistry and thermodynamics are used to govern this process.
The second step is adding a second water soluble polymer, such as gum arabic, to this emulsion. After mixing, the pH needs to be adjusted so that the result is the spontaneous formation of two incompatible liquid phases called the coacervate (high polymer concentration) and the supernatant (low polymer concentrations). This step requires an additional specialty: polymer chemistry
Later the forming of microcapsules is governed by mechanical science and diffusion chemistry, and the hardening of shell is involved with thermal release and polymer chemistry. Every step is highly dependent upon the others. Even for scientists working with microencapsulation, it’s hard for them to decide which factor is more important. All these variations in this coacervation process have to cooperate well in order to produce a desired product. Therefore, microencapsulation is a real art of chemistry.
http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/ttoday/summer95/microeng.htm

Read more!

Boris Lipkin - Week 6

The midterm this week was a very fair, albeit conventional way of testing our comprehension of the material. For many of the students in this class, the topics and ways of teaching are very new and different from the classes that they usually take. Unfortunately, the midterm fell along the lines of most of our other classes. It would seem fitting that in a class that is so different that the grading would be very different also. I would’ve preferred to get away from the midterm/paper way of testing comprehension through something more hands-on where we get a deeper understanding of the topics in this class. I think we could’ve learned a lot about other people’s ideas by expanding on our discussion sections by doing some kind of integrative project on the topics of the first five weeks of the course. This class is unique in its concepts and approach of having lots of guest speakers from all sorts of areas teach to bring in new ideas so I think the midterm could’ve used more of that too.
Overall, the first five weeks of this class have been very interesting and different. As an econ major I’ve gotten used to figuring out math-based problems and reading graphs (just some stereotypes) so getting out of that setting and being in a class where we write blogs, have different topics and speakers each week, and learn about another part of the world is a gleaming success of the GE classes at UCLA. These classes are meant to expand our thinking and apply our knowledge in areas that we will not be focusing on. This class has done a great job of that as I would have never heard of artists such as Stelarc and Orlan in any of my other classes or everyday interactions. It’s good to know that I am expanding my horizons and going at least a little outside of the areas that I am comfortable in. If I have an opportunity to take some extra courses while I am here, I definitely think that some sort of art history class might be something that I would be interested in. I’m glad that this class has been taught on a level that expects students taking it to be new to its ideas so I hope that other art history classes will take that approach. This class has been the most outside-the-box class I’ve taken here and has certainly provided me with more conversation topics than any of my other classes.

Read more!

Christopher Flannery - Week 6 - Halfway

Overall, I have enjoyed the structure and presentation of this class. Occasionally I felt overwhelmed and confused by the diversity and number of topics covered, but by the end of each week, everything became coherent. The readings and class presentations are well aligned and clear. My only complaint is that sometimes it is difficult to write the blog because it so open-ended. I either feel like I have too many things to cover or don’t know what I could possibly write about. Perhaps we could have optional broad and guiding questions pertaining to the topic of that week so that it is easier to begin and concentrate on a topic.
I really liked all the guest lecturers, especially Professor Reas. I don’t think this class would be nearly as effective without the guest lecturers because the subject matter is so new and still developing. It’s refreshing to study something, especially art, which is current and still evolving.
I was surprised by how short the midterm felt. I had done a lot of preparing, and when I picked an image I was very familiar with it did not take long to layout an outline and fill the pages. All my real effort was beforehand, so taking the midterm was not overwhelming.
When I was discussing this class with my music professor, he loaned me a book titled “Art and Technology: A Report on the Art and Technology Program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.” The project took place in 1967-1971 and was ultimately considered a failure to live up to its hype. Headed by Maurice Tuchman, the project sought to give the best technology of the time to the best artists in the world. The group asked for funding and donations from over 250 companies and almost 80 artists including Hans Haacke and Andy Warhol. The book documents all of their works in detail.
The project that interested me the most was research done by Robert Irwin in conjunction with IBM. Irwin used an anechoic chamber, or a room isolated from all outside noise and insulated to prevent any audio reverberations, to test the body’s responses to sound, visuals, and tactile effects in such an environment. The subject would wait in the chamber for about 15 minutes so that they were acclimated to “sensory deprivation” before the tests to the senses would begin. After the results, they also tried to discover how if the senses could acclimate and train themselves to the environment. He was aiming to learn about the effects of the length of time spent in the chamber, and visual, auditory, or kinetic stimulation on the subjects.
This project reminded me of Professor Vesna’s work which used visualizations accompanied by a minute of the repulsive sound of a cell dying and then a minute of the lovely drone of a sitar. Both aim to teach us about our own states of consciousness and the effect that the environment has on it.

Read more!

Julie Fair- week 6- Post Midterm Reflection

Although we didn't cover any new material in lecture this week, I felt like I still learned a lot. Doing all the outside research to prepare for the midterm brought me into contact with a ton of new information, and understanding that we were going to need to be able to use our knowledge to make connections made me look at the material in a very different light. Basically it just made me realize how amazingly talented all of these artists are and how passionate they are about their work. I especially noticed this with Steve Kurtz, Buckminster Fuller, and Orlan.

When I was researching Steve Kurtz, I read through pages and pages of info about the Cult of the New Eve. His explanations for the cult and their practices were so thoroughly developed. It just made realize how much he puts into his work. This had to have been something that really meant something to him for him to be able to develop it so far. I found it really impressive that he had so much information listed and that it was so well supported. For example: his descriptions of the "False Eves," where he has so much information listed to support his ideas and theories. In the case of the android eve, he cites several movies drawing from the concept and mentions her first appearance. He also explains his reasons for believing she is obsolete etc. In short, he makes a very good case for his claims and is very logical in his approach. It just stood out to me, how much detail he put into his project. This is a photo of the android eve:

Buckminster Fuller also really stood out to me because of his dedication to his cause. Beyond being an artist and designer, he was a true humanitarian and for that, he is equally impressive. His work is amazing in its aesthetic appeal, but even more remarkable is the potential it holds for mankind. I thought it was very interesting to read that he accurately predicted the time when it would become possible to end hunger in the world. I did not know that this was a possibility at this point in time until I did this research. I think that it is amazing that we have this capability and yet, no one has made any significant move to make it a reality. I think part of the reason for this might simply be a lack of knowledge. Very few people must know that we have this capacity as a world, or something would be happening to make it happen. I thought Bucky was amazing because he dedicated his entire career to helping the world and working toward a better future. Check him out:http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller

Orlan also stood out to me (how could she not???). Her work must obviously mean a lot to her for her to be going through the procedures she is in order to produce her pieces. As I was researching her for the midterm, I really began to realize she was coming from, because at first I had no idea what kind of statement she was trying to make. Now I realize that the way she approaches creating art is very fitting for the message she trying to send, that women do not have to conform to a man's definition of beauty.

Read more!

Kelly Banh (End of Week 6)

Midterm:
I felt that I wanted to showcase more of what I had learned in the first half of the quarter on the midterm than the option we were given. It would have been much more enriching to do a midterm project instead of an in-class midterm essay. However, given what it was, the format of the midterm was not bad at all. Allowing students the option of writing on the piece of their choice is very fair, as different students may have found different magnitudes of importance in the various artists we covered. It still would have been nice to do something other than a written essay. The one aspect that I’ve enjoyed so much about the class so far is that it is an organized class in structure, yet nonconformist in thinking and interpretation and its encouragement of doing just that. I just wish we would have had the chance to participate in a midterm project that would have been consistent with these class values that I’ve had very high regards toward.
First Half of the Quarter:
Like anyone else, I learn better with visual aids. I have looked forward to being exposed to more and more works of art in the class, of which many of the artists I have never heard of. So far, my favorites have included the Mandelbrot sets, Reas, The Growing Raining Tree, and under individual research, the p-glow gene rabbit. I have found it much more difficult to enjoy certain generative art pieces like the condensation cube, and the Cult of the New Eve. Also, I enjoy the structure of discussion. We are able to touch base on a mix of the reading materials and the lecture materials, but most importantly apply those materials to new ones brought about in discussion alone. I’m awaiting the rest of what class has in store for us, and I hope that we touch base on more social science-related artworks as well as health-related artworks because it is such an important science for me personally.
Health-related Art:
We have often regarded doing or performing art as a stress-reliever and self-expression. My favorite science-related topics are anything in the health field, which is why I’ve chosen to discuss art in health. The website, www.changingimages.org, is “dedicated to enriching the lives of people in traditional institutional settings by bringing color and comfort through supervised interactive art activities.” We have discussed the importance of art in bringing the attention of the general public to controversial issues in biotechnology, and I feel that art as a means of “healing” is just as important and just as related to science. It involves the effects of art on the brain and mental health, which in turn, affects physical health. In the same way that music is a performing art many people have found escape in, visual art like paintings and photographs can also provide people with the same outlet and comfort. I’d like to learn more about the scientific properties behind related studies to this topic, and it is something that I will most likely do self-led research on in the future.

Read more!

Annie Wu- Week 6

For the midterm, I was actually pretty surprised that I managed to write so much on the image that I chose. I guess all the ideas and thoughts just came pouring out as I wrote the essay, along with the information and things I had learned from discussions and lectures. Before taking the midterm, I had actually worried about not having enough to write about the art works from the study list. However, during the midterm, I realized that I did not need to worry so much, and that because art is so open for interpretation, I could just write about my own analysis and opinions. This really made me appreciate art that much more, simply because there is not an exact right or wrong answer…everything just kind of depends on your logic and reasoning. Art is really amazing and I really love this field—there so much freedom and space to explore.

I realized that for the first half of the quarter, everything we have talked or learned about in class has basically been focused on science and technology. We have not focused on art or design without some kind of integration of the sciences and/or technology. This is a really different approach for me, because I am so used to studying art through purely art forms, such as paintings and sculptures. This class is really different (in comparison to Art History: Modern Art, which I took last quarter) in its approach to design and art. It really forces me to see art from a completely different perspective, and it shows me how broad art can be. Sometimes I am surprised by the endless boundaries of art—things that I normally would not have considered to be art are actually art. An example of this would be the Mandelbrot fractal set. I would have just categorized it as a visual representation of math, and nothing more. I did not realize the aesthetic quality of it. I guess this just goes to show how people today still perceive the sciences and arts to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

While searching online, I found this article “Blurring the Line Between Science and Art,” and obviously, based on the title alone, it relates to what we have been learning in class. It talks about Caitlin Piette, a student who uses her artistic and creative abilities to help her work in the laboratory. She is doing research on “the relatively unknown effects of certain proteins on embryonic development;” she studies these proteins by staining cells with bright colors and taking detailed images of them. The images she produces are considered to be art pieces themselves. I think it is really interesting how she manages to use her artistic skills to her advantage, to help her in the sciences. Throughout this course, it seems like most of the art works we have studied were created with the help of science and technology. Artists such as Stelarc, Orlan, and Casey Reas use technology to perform and create art. In Piette’s case, it seems to be the opposite, for she uses art to study science. I guess this could be the same for Mandelbrot, because of how bright colors are used to study his fractal sets. I really do believe that the gap between science and art is closing, because they are constantly being intertwined nowadays. By implementing both these fields together are we able to progress into the future.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529886/

Read more!

Juliet Lee - week 6 - thoughts on the 1st half

The first week of clas have been interesting to say the least. There have been lots of modern artworks and artists that we have been exposed to , none of which I ever would have seen if it had not been for this class. I enjoy the thought of a community of artists invested in something that they take so seriously and care so much about. For example Steve Kurtz, he has made a huge impact in the art world, but outside of it he is relatively unknown. What I do not care for in both his performance art and other artists further carrying out the stererotypes of contemporary art being like a kind of joke, something that cannot be taken seriously as an art form. I still cannot understand why it is necessary for Kurtz to go against the establishment the way he does in order to make a point. To be investigated and persecuted like some kind of anti-American terrorist does not make him more legitimate to people outside of the art world. I think that it would be interesting if could still make his point doing the same 'artwork' while going along with the authorities, instead of against them. Why not question the rules, not by breaking them, but by using them to further his goals? That is why I think I enjoy the works of more 'traditional' artists like Casey Reas, and the way their work is more about the process that they took to get to the end product. It is fascinating the things that people can do with modern technology to create art forms, like Mandelbrot's fractal set. About the actual midterm I was very pleased that there was a study guide for us to use to prepare for the exam. As the class progressed and we were shown more and more images I was getting anxious about how the test was actually going to go. So thanks to whoever decided to limit the number of works down to a select few. In doing that, I felt like it was also easier for me to think of the works in a more critical manner and I could compare and contrast the various artworks better, than from just sitting in class and getting bombarded with images and information. This video clip was one of the featured videos on YouTube, it is called "Doll Face" by Andy Huang. It shows a young womans face as the head of a jack-in-the-box type robot machine, and as she watches a television, tries to copy the face of the image she sees on the screen. In the end the television keeps pulling away and the robot woman wants to keep close and ends up crashing and breaking. It reminds me of Stelarc's mechanical body and Orlan's goal for perfection, tied up in one nice digital video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zl6hNj1uOkY

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 6 - Reflections on the Course

I feel that this week would be a good one to reflect on the course material thus far. The guest lecturers and first-hand interactions with the artists we are learning about provide a useful insight into the core of the class. I think that that is what makes this course so intriguing - it provides a different insight into the artistic process than a non interdisciplinary class could offer.

For my midterm essay I chose Casey Reas' work. I have always been intrigued by computer assisted design, but the idea of the computer actually designing the work was completely foreign to me before this class. When Casey spoke to the class, it truly piqued my interests. As soon as i got back from classes for the day I did some research and eventually downloaded Processing. After about two hours of messing around with it I started to get the gist of the way it worked, but was nowhere near close to anything that Casey does.

While most computer programmers are relatively secretive when it comes to the creation process, I admire the way that Casey's entire process it completely open - he provides a step by step guide of the intuitive process he goes through during the development of his programs. The beauty of this situation is that even though he gives thorough explanations of the design process, the work is so intuitive and based on personal aesthetics that it could be replicated by thousands of programmers and produce thousands of results.

Such was the case with Sol LeWitt as well. Among many of his other famous works, one of the things he is most famous for is his conceptual works taking advantage of the difference between artists' personal preferences to create artworks that were inherently different while being guided by the same principles. With his Wall Drawing, for example, he created a written set of instructions for a painting and sent them to artists all over the nation. For this one, he probably sent them something like the following: "colorful, parallel lines drawn across a square canvas." As is evident from the image above, that simple statement can be interpreted many different ways.

That is the beauty of generative art - even within a rather limiting set of parameters, there are literally infinite possibilities.

Read more!

Section 4 week 6

"Hmm...freedom to write about what I want?" I asked myself. "Well I just learned to love the freedom of creativity involved in graffiti. Why don't I write about that." And then I proceeded to write:
I think graffiti is the ultimate level of art for everyone; graffiti is readily available to anyone anywhere, practically at any time, and so it is the everyman's art. At first, it may not be readily understood, but art has always been heavily reliant on technology. For example, there was a time when stickers were only for companies to develop and, as time went by, they became customizable and more sticky to the point where one could leave their mark on any building, street sign or traffic light, and it would not come off easily. Eventually they became a trademark for the skating culture and for underground political movements and social experiments like the "OBEY GIANT" campaign which took a stylized picture of Andre the Giant with the letters "OBEY" written below his picture. People postulated the reasons that these stickers were popping up all over the world and eventually came to the conclusion that it was some sort of political movement aimed at undermining the current government and so people loyal to the current government started taking them down while people who demanded change began supporting them.

Spray cans enabled people to paint a wall quickly through stenciling or tagging, thereby allowing regular people or amateur artists to put their artworks around town in creative ways.


And finally posters, simple sheets of paper, allowed a new computer based medium to produce the art that could also be displayed around town. Pictures, graphic designs and texts could be made easily accessible.
"...And God said, 'I will give you a spray can, and with it you shall spread your message' and so man did, and it was good."
Graffiti to me is an improvement on gallery art because graffiti removes the seeking element of art, where one needs to actively look for a gallery in order to access the art, and makes the space in which a person lives the gallery. Now art is a part of daily life and the artist's message can be put anywhere for anyone to see. Here's an example of posters of Israelis and Palestinians who had the same job that a photographer put on a separation wall. The photographer told these people that they were not anti-Israeli and weren't anti-Palestinian but supportive of a peaceful solution and both sides agreed to participate in the project.


Now you may be thinking, 'Alex, seriously, there's no cutting edge technology involved there. Your point's crap,' to which I will point the reader in the direccion of the Graffiti Research Lab. GRL is a group of engineers and artists that have worked together to make awesome technology for graffiti. Some of their better known projects are "L.A.S.E.R. tag" which is a projector that translates the movement of a wand into projection so that you can point the projector to a building and just move the wand to produce what looks like a giant tag. The greatest part is that the police can't do anything about it because it's not permanent. Take a look.



That's not all. GRL is on the forefront of beautiful technologies for graffiti in many other aspects. For example, a common use for the US Postal Service's priority mail stickers is for packages because they use an adhesive that holds really tight so that it won't come off the package. Another common use is for homemade stickers. GRL takes it to a whole new level by using conductive paint to turn the stickers into paper circuit boards so as to make electronic graffiti that flashes and could potentially make noise or do anything involving electronics. They have applied this style of "make your own" conductive paint circuits to stenciling. Here's a video demonstration of that.

http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?page_id=13#video

The final cool project I've seen out of them is called "LED throwies." Imagine a simple LED connected to a battery connected to a strong rare earth element and you've got an LED throwie. Using the strong earth magnet they attach to anything metal from hand rails to buildings. Here's another video that I particularly liked. They made this building the brightest and best looking one on the whole block.

http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?page_id=6#video

It took me a while from my childhood to realize this is art and, more than that, expression. People are willing to express themselves at the risk of getting caught for destroying property and completely for free. The world has become our gallery and we don't have to like all of it just like any other gallery. We now have the individual, albeit not legal, freedom to express ourselves through any art that we do whether it be by poster, etching, electronics, stickers, paint, even pens or chalk. Aritistic creation, is no longer limited to a 10"x14" wall space but rather an entire exterior wall. It was after I fully appreciated this freedom of creativity that I saw the DESMA email that told me I had absolute freedom to choose what I wanted to write about. "Hmm...freedom to write about what I want?" I asked myself. "Well I just learned to love the freedom of creativity involved in graffiti. Why don't I write about that." And then I proceeded to write:
I think graffiti is the ultimate level of art for everyone...

Read more!

thank goodness for reas, James Zavala, week 6

Thanks goodness for the images that were chosen. As I sat there and studied some of the pieces that were chosen for possible midterm topics I seriously worried. There were very few of the many works that were chosen that I had any interest in and I sat there and read about them I worried if I was going to be able to fish out three to five pages on the certain topic. I showed a lot of interest in the work by Casey Reas and fortunately it was one that was chosen. I go there late and saw that his work was actually one that I could write about and I felt relieved. Since his work involves a lot of mathematics and programming it catches my eye being that I am xo amazed at what he has done. I don’t want to sit here and write a hole thing on him again but needless to say, everyone that I show his work and what he has done is appreciative of his work. The fact that his designs are so intriguing alone and beautiful and