Alexander Yeh, week 10, Plasma Research Art

This week’s lecture on plasma physics by Walter Gekelman was by far the most interesting lecture so far. While I admit that it involved little art and much more electrodynamics, the artistic portions seemed to be very similar to Professor Charles Taylor’s lecture in using graphical forms of data as art. However, Dr. Gekelman renderings seemed to emphasize art a bit more in that in some of his works, they were purposefully rendered in a certain way in order to be called art. For example, his electric field streamline graph of the currents through the plasma with the added snakeskin effect really showed the complexity of the electric fields through the plasma.

My interest in the lecture did not stem from by artistic side by stemmed from by scientific side. It is fascinating to me how while almost all the universe consists of the state of matter of plasma, it takes very sophisticated equipment to be able to study it. All of the common knowledge of science consists of the tiny portion of the universe that isn’t made of plasma. Most fascinating however was how be described the characteristics of the behavior of two merging fields of plasma. Furthermore, it was interesting to me how plasma is studies through measuring the magnetic field intensities at certain locations and after using numerical analysis with Maxwell’s equations, all of the electromagnetic characteristic of the plasma can be deduced.

However, because of the complexity of the system, the data itself is hard to understand but when the data is represented as images using streamlines, vector fields and equipotential surfaces, the data is much more easily interpreted by humans. Now the question is if this can be interpreted as art.

The graphical displays of data used in Charles Taylor’s works seem to be more just charts that you would find in a statistics class or a history class that is used to display trends in a form more easily understood than raw data. The displays that Dr. Gekelman showed however involved far more numerical processing and the use of streamlines was essential in its understanding. It is not a question of whether plasma can be used as art. Plasma as art is everywhere. Just look at all the neon displays all along shopping districts or at the site http://www.plasma-art.com . However, the graphical data of streamlines used to study data in plasma physics is the same used in the disciplines of fluid dynamics and electromagnetism just to name a few. So every time a streamline plot is made, is an art piece is made simultaneously?

It seems as though the graphical display of data used in plasma physics research strongly resembles the complexity in the graphical displays of the Mandelbrot fractals. Both involve sets of data that with trends that can be only understood through large amount of processing and rendering. The beauty rooted in these two fields is evident in the complexity found in the very simple systems, in the very nature of our universe and mathematical systems.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 10 - We Are Not Alone...

Ever since the prospect of space travel has graced the pages of science fiction novels and comic books, people have tried to put a face to the mystery that they associate with the unknown universe. This is where the idea of extra-terrestrials, or life forms from another planet, enter the picture.

The idea of the alien, or extra-terrestrial, has been associated with the mystery and horror that exists in that which we do not fully understand. While the frontiers of space are more accessible than ever before, space exploration has a sort of chain reaction effect: the more we know, the more we realize that we do not and potentially cannot know. This idea is not acceptable in our culture, so people try to put images to the disembodied ideas that we have conceived.

Popular culture is inundated with references to aliens, whether they be evil or peaceful and has been as such since the early fifties, when the idea of space travel was first conceived as possible. Mankind is not fundamentally wired to accept that there may in fact be some other life form that exists independently from us, whether it be "in a galaxy far, far away" or even within our own solar system. The simple fact is, people fear that which they cannot control, and the belief that other-worldy bodies not only exist but are ready to attack us at any moment is threatening to the basic foundation and principles by which our culture functions.

The modern image of the alien is amusing and egotistic and describes a whole mess of how humans view the world around them. The traditional image of the alien (as seen above) portrays a short-statured creature with green skin, no hair, long arms, large, black eyes, no nose and a small mouth. These lifeforms share a great deal of characteristics with humans but they generally have some sort of powers - whether it be the healing finger of E.T. or the over-exaggerated brain power of those which appear in The Simpsons and other movies or TV Shows. All of the aliens also seem to have some sort of infatuation with the human anatomy and they often engage in activities such as anal probing and dissection.

At this point in our scientific knowledge and discovery, there really is no way to know whether there are actually other life forms in the universe. It would be arrogant to think that the (non-religious) idea that the way the earth and its inhabitants were conceived was a miracle only possible and that only occurred in one place in the infinite regions that make up the infinite abyss. Regardless of what science may prove, however, the idea of the other-worldy lifeform will continue to be a major focal point of our culture.

Read more!

Alexander Yeh, Week 9, Nanobots Already Exist

During the lecture by James Gimzewski, one of the ideas that stuck with me was that nanotechnology allows the feasibility of much more than before, so much more that it cannot be though of through the usual perspective of scientists but must be seen through the perspective of artists. While the possibility of what can be done is far less bounded when perceived by artists, the reality is that the current artwork is not taking advantage of this.

I believe that with all the work done by scientists involving manually manipulating the position of molecules is esentially useless. We can easily image the vast possibilities of what can be done with manipulating individual molecules. The only barrier of realizing these possibilities is a manufacturing process capable of such manipulation on a large scale.

However, there is already an industry which manufactures trillions of nano-scale devices daily. In the electronics industry, the feature size of integrated circuits is approaching within the next several months 40 nanometers. The manufacturing challenges of creating transistors in this scale are already being tackled by engineers in this field. Molecular size limits the industry trend of downscaling of feature size, demanding that new technologies and new methods of manufacturing be develops to keep up with the standard trend of downscaling stated by Moore’s law. Moore’s Law is the pacesetter of the industry, stating that the feature size will be halved every approximately 18 months. While the feature size of integrated circuits has not been sub 100nm for long, nanotechnology has existed in the semiconductor industry for decades. In the article “Nanotechnology and the End of Moore’s Law” by David Bishop found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112142534/PDFSTART , Bishop tells how for some time in VLSI CMOS technology, the technology for semiconductor manufacturing, individual components have been on the nanoscale.

While many expect a huge paradigm shift with nanotechnology, I expect that the reality will still be based on old ideas applied to new venues. This scale of VLSI manufacturing is translates to mechanical devices with micro electrical mechanical systems (mems), described at the site http://www.memsnet.org/mems/what-is.html . Both VLSI and mems rely of the same chemical, optical, and mechanical processes for their manufacturing. People do not realize that nanobots already exist, just not at the complexity imagined by science fiction. David Bishop states that, “While in a decade or more much of the standard approach will be nanoscale, it will not feel like a revolution, but like an evolution—though rapid, it will still be an analytic continuation of what has gone on before.”

Thus, the work done by artists involving the individual manipulation of carbon monoxide molecules to create words is much like the GFP bunny by Eduardo Kac. It is a technology that has been around for a very long time, does not contribute anything to the scientific community, and does little to expose the public to the cutting edge of technology. However, unlike the GFP bunny, it is being replicated many times over. Imagine a GFP chicken, a GFP goose, and a GFC duck all created as artwork.

Read more!

Maddddd Scientist

This past week we touched on some of the ideas of engineer, Nikola Tesla, but due to time constraints we were only introduced to some of his theories on a surface level. This week, I took my time to further study the ideals and creations of Nikola Tesla, a pioneer of electromagnetism. What drew my interest in his work was his persona as a "mad scientist." Due to his eccentric personality and bizarre theories, I beleive that he wasn't given the credit he deserved as a scientist during his lifetime. Tesla spent a lot of time investigating energy that was present throughout space and it would just be a question of time when mankind could use their machinery to tap into this energy. Tesla, who is credited for the invention of the radio, studied the craft of transmitting energy wirelessly throughout space.
I found something extremely interesting regarding his personal life. Nikola Tesla(1856-1943)
experienced symptoms of what we now refer to as Osessive Compulsive Disorder. During his lifetime his theories were strongly discredited due to the fact that he was considered "insane" because of the lack of knowledge of his disorder. I believe that had there been treatments for this disorder in the early 1900's it is possible that he could have received better funding and therefore had more freedom to experiment with the theories he was creating and possibly discovered much more about the transmission of wireless energy. He was restrained though, in the sense that he was brushed off and viewed as someone who couldn't be taken fully seriously due to his "partial insanity."
He was aware of his disorder, not having a specific name for it, but he knew that his obsession was drawing people away from his work. He didn't hide from it though. He truly believed that his disorder was irrelevant to the work that he was producing which is why I find him to be a pioneer for "mad scientists."
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from Tesla that i believe explain a lot about how he viewed himself in opposition to those criticizing him:

"The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." - Nikola Tesla

"I do not think that there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success. Such emotion make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 9 - Beware: Rant Ahead

Art may very well be the honest expression of multiple senses: a myriad of perspectives align to grant the receiver some grasp of a concept or construct. However, it is obviously most commonly the eye that assumes the largest role in the reception of any artwork – outside of interactive art, there is a serious lacking in artistic appreciation for any sense other than the ocular.

It is with this in mind that nanotechnology presents itself as an aberration and a seemingly unnatural manifestation of artistic talent: without a mechanical (or perhaps bionic) eye, man is unable to witness that which renders itself smaller than a grain of salt. Despite this, artists build abacuses, wheelbarrows and bulls at a nanoscopic scale; the adroitness and adeptness fitting a hand capable of creating art in these dimensions is unfounded, and so the means of creation itself is furthermore an extension of human perspective. The phenomenon of art that can neither be molded nor witnessed through basic human biology is similar to my conceiving of a robot painting his own work and then concealing it from my view unless I coerced him into presentation. This disconnect between skill and perspective inherent in nanotechnological art is unparalleled – while Casey Reas’ art may concern little coordination of the hand, the eye is but the only tool required to witness his creations.

When Stelarc claims that “the body is obsolete,” he is arguably incorrect – regardless, his words in the context of art neither viewable nor generated by human biology alone resound anew. In the pursuit of human technology and the progress of human sensations, the body is obsolete so far as you push it to obscurity and ineptitude. Were I to tell you the human nose is obsolete in that it doesn’t detect those scents by which a bloodhound navigates the world I would be falsely displacing you in a context not your own – in the same way, the human eyes and fingers may be only as obsolete as we raise the bar by which they evolved to operate. Perhaps Stelarc’s comment breathes more clearly in this environment, within the context of a human world madly after technology whose presence it will shortly be unable to even detect. If the chimp evolves to wear top hats and suits and solves world hunger, perhaps the human mind and body are obsolete; however, if I create a robot that solves world hunger and operates life better than I do, it would be fair to say I am obsolete to the point that my creation of that robot is no longer needed. This is all a long-winded way to make the claim that while nanotechnology as a science may prove its presence in the unperceivable world of minor dimensions through proof and promise, the presence of a nanoscopic bull (unless magnified) conveys to me little perspective other than that which I can never single-handedly attain.

With the majority of topics presented thus far, there has been a method to the madness that connects art to science – however, the sentiment here divulges as it is unclear personally as to why nanotechnology would serve the pursuit of artistic message. Perhaps the beating of a butterfly’s heart is beautiful in its unexpected rhythm and soft contours – however, that art which teaches me something about life generally exists on a plane of my own perception. After all, it is on that plane that I make the majority of my decisions.

Or, maybe I’m just burnt out.

Read more!

Jacob Karp - Week 9 - Nano-Revolution

Though this past week was short on the lecture front, it was extremely interesting. Never before had I been exposed to the nature of molecules on the sub-micro-scale. I find nanotechnology fascinating especially because it seems apparent that it will either be the next technological revolution or have a pivotal hand in such a revolution. The potential implications of this technology seem incredibly vast from personal and environmental health to art.

I thought the ideas that Professor James Gimzewski dismissed as to straight forward and engineering-based such as nano-gears that made a few rotations before falling apart were fascinating despite their being impractical. The idea that we have the potential to create what are essentially mechanical machines that are comprised of a few (relative) molecules is almost unfathomable.

I researched nanotechnology to see what areas it is predicted to become a potential resource to improve present situations. The first area I stumbled upon was climate change. Nanoparticles are estimated to potentially reduce CO2 by 4.5 million tons if incorporated into diesel fuel and solar panels alone. It is also believed that nanotechnology will play a large roll in the eventual use of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, helping create more efficient means of hydrogen storage and production.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2494

Nanotechnology can also be used to differentiate substances that an individual has consumed merely by exposing “Antibody-Functionalized Nanoparticles”. It has already been used to distinguish a smoker from a non-smoker through the individual’s metabolites that are revealed in their fingerprint.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2486

Nanotechnology is also being used for detecting cancer in early stages as well as carrying anti-cancer drugs to the affected cells. By using nanoscale delivery vessels it is hoped that it will become possible to carry anticancer vaccines and prevention agents to cells throughout the body to prevent cancer from developing.

The medical gains through nanotechnology development is possible because nanoparticles are small enough to penetrate a cell of an organism without be invasive.

http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_brochure_cancer_nanotechnology.pdf

I find nanotechnology interesting solely for its scientific implications, but I find it equally intriguing is its incorporation into art. The Quantum Tunnel piece that Victoria and Professor Gimzewski created is a particular piece that comes to mind because of the atomic reaction to a person as they walk and are mirrored by a projected image of themselves that scatters as the subject moves. The fact that it is atoms that are composing the piece and are visually responsive to the viewer/subject is incredible.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1223_031223_nanotechnology_2.html

I did wish that Professor Gimzewski would have gone into further detail on how the pieces he’s taken part in are operational in a manner slightly more sophisticated because I still feel that I don’t have a true grasp of how a projection can respond to shadows.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 9 - Thinkers Who Preceeded their Time

Often times, the scientific claims made by thinkers of the day seem ostensibly far fetched and unreasonable. Unfortunately, such is often the case with some of the greatest thinkers and their inventions when they come before their time. The best examples of this would clearly be Nikola Tesla and, to some extent, Buckminster Fuller.

























Nikola Tesla has been credited as being the father of the 20th century - he has developed the products or the technology behind the products that people use every day and do not think twice about. Among these were Alternating Current electrical outlets and the field of electromagnetics. His ideas were not all as well-received as these were, however - many of his ideas and theories were written off as the babble of a mad scientist.

The best example of the "nutty professor" would have to be the idea of Tesla's 'peace ray,' which is basically a cannon which shoots millions of volts of electricity into a given victim. Needless to say, this idea was (and to some extent, still remains) ridiculous. I happen to know, however, that scientists have recently developed the technology to make such a device possible. I know this because the company is owned by my cousin.

The most difficult part of Tesla's vision to implement was undoubtedly the technology to amplify a normal electrical current to the magnitude necessary for Tesla's invention. Commonly referred to as the Tesla Coil, the only thing that kept his notion from becoming reality was the technology to amplify a normal current. Now that this technology exists, I am sure that all of the disbelievers have their metaphorical tails between their legs...


While not to the extreme that Tesla's ideas were received, Buckminster Fuller's outrageous and quite sci-fi architectural structures were too advanced for their time. Only now do we know that such structures as his geodesic dome are actually found at the most minute of levels - The atomic structure of many carbon molecules (aptly names Fullerines) pattern the structures that Fuller created decades before.


If anything can be taken from the ostracism received by Tesla and Fuller, it is just that sometimes people are ahead of their times. Ideas may seem far fetched today, but in the future they may come to become a stark reality.

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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 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!

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!

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!

Alex Yeh ; Week 5 ; Stelarc as an Evolution of Orlan

Contrary to many people’s first reaction to Orlan’s work which is that the body can be used as a centerpiece for art, my first reaction to Orlan’s art was to view it, in a modern sense where such surgeries are common, as being almost parallel to Stelarc’s work. Stelarc proclaims that the human body is obsolete, while Orlan’s work seems to represent how the organic body is obsolete. According to an article about Orlan’s work found at http://www.digibodies.org/online/orlan.htm , Orlan is “outwardly against Christianity and the idea the the body is sacred.” Just as Stelarc inflicts pain on his body through his suspension performances in front of an audience, Orlan does the same with her plastic surgeries. Both seek to change the paradigm that the human body is not to be touched. In Orlan’s art, the human body is often maniupated and thereby enhanced through synthetic modifications. It is said that her work is a “celebration” of a time when our culture and technology has come to a point where the human body can be altered and enhanced through plastic surgery. So if all components of the body are replaced with their synthetic counterparts, can the body still be called human. This very nesscecity of replacing or modifying body parts for cosmetic purposes shows how the body is obsolete in that is does not even satisfy the standards of society.

Stelarc only takes his view one step further. In his declaration of how the body is obsolete, found at http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/obsolete/obsolete.html, Stelarc states how it is not enough for parts of the body to be replaced. Because of of the immune response of the body against implantation of foreign systems to replace ones that are not working correctly, replacing minor parts is no enough. He tells how the whole body must eventually be replaced. Thus, the body as a whole is obsolete. In the video we watched in class, Orlan told about how she is a feminist and working against visual prejudice. What could be better for her cause than a future where all human bodies are replaced my mechanical ones. Any prejudice about ones mind would be made completely irrelevant and it would be obvious that any visual prejudice could not hold any truth.

One of the most interesting applications of technology in art involving the body is the Ping Body performance found at http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/pingbody/index.html . In this performance, Stelarc’s body was connected to a muscle stimulation system that could control through the electrical impulses. In this way, all of his body movement were made involuntary. The system was then connected to a computer and connected to the internet. Stelarc body was made to not respond to the controls of a single internet user, but was made to responds to internet traffic as a whole. So instead of a single person controlling a single body, his body was being controlled by thousands of minds. This this is a great representation of the mind-body dualism as just like in Descartes’ theoredical view of the dualism, the body is actually physically made into a machine, creating full independent from the mind. I tend to agree with the view that the machine created for the mind by nature has been exceeded with the inventions with technologies created by the mind.

Read more!

The Machines We Adore

INSERT INTRO!!! INSERT BODY!!!

I feel like I am in a grey room. Science, art, mathematics, linguistics, grammar, these things do not provide the answers to life. This is something I am learning which I did not expect to learn in college. Roy Ascott’s talk got me to thinking a lot about our world, the state it is in and where we are headed. He asked a couple questions that I don’t really think can be answered by doing research on the internet and providing links for. I think that they must be answered from within ourselves. Questions like; who controls knowledge, who can be considered a special handler of knowledge, what are universities doing in our society. These questions inspired me to ask my own questions; what do I feel about technology taking up so much space in our world and with myself, what direction is the world going in and what effect is the “God syndrome” having on us as a culture. When I say “God syndrome” I refer to our desire to create worlds and be the god of our own territory. I think this applies to most Americans. Our government is obsessed with territory and has been for a very long time, and so have most dominating countries and America’s citizens are equally obsessed. We play games like Civilization and The Sims and Second World. Why do we feel the need to have control of something? What is missing in our lives that we feel we have lost control over things around us and thus need to create worlds in which we govern and make decisions down to the clothing people wear and the people they communicate with. I think it is technology personally. I think that because technology is taking over so much of what we know that we feel we have lost communication, which many might consider a silly statement because we have created multiple ways of communicating with one another to the point that we can be reached and watched anywhere at any time. I am not sure that is effective communication though, simply because you can reach someone doesn’t mean that you will say the right thing once you get through to them. You can’t fix a problem through texting or email, healing comes through touch and sight. People need human contact to stay alive, to feel healthy. We need one another and we are constantly creating ways to separate ourselves through contact. A phone conversation doesn’t out weight a hug on an awful day and can’t wipe away tears when you are sad, or lend you a smile when you are filled with joy. Technology isn’t the answer to everything, and I am worried that the direction our world is going is one of miscommunicating communicators. People who are so out of sync with really talking to one another, making eye contact and saying things that when face to face with someone they are accountable for that they will just stop understanding how to effectively speak to one another through vocals and body language.

I think that universities should be teaching us how to ask effective questions that will help us change the world and make it a better place. I am afraid that it is only playing a bigger part in the highschool game of tests and numbers. If we program our kids to judge learning, knowledge and their self worth on their test scores and grades at such a young age and for so long, by the time they reach college a time when we are supposed to say screw the rules let me just learn, they will be unable to do so.

My hope is that we can stop that before we stop knowing how to do all the things that make us human, that we won’t turn into the machines we adore so much.

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 5 - Projection

When Roy Ascott discussed the concept of astral projections in prefacing his lecture on Wednesday he brilliantly illustrated a link that is so important to culture and even more so to artistry in a technological world. The idea of an out-of-body-experience might be a common setting for a dream it is the mode of transportation with which many forms of technology extend the mind past the body.

Stelarc’s own claim of the body’s obsoleteness relies on the awareness that the mind has become increasingly more and more vital to the functioning and maintenance of human life. Projecting one’s mind has never been so easy – in Ascott’s referencing online environments such as Second Life or even World of Warcraft he correctly implies how alluring the temptation to redefine the body through technology has become. This phenomenon is universally pervasive; studies demonstrate how men more often choose female avatars to represent themselves in games such as World of Warcraft (http://blogs.parc.com/playon/archives/data/wow_data/gender/index.html). Other environments lacking a physical projection (such as a simple chat room) reduce the likelihood of gender-bending and instead put pressure on participants to focus on articulation, humor or personality.

However, these astral projections have been around as long as man conceived of stars themselves – religion itself is often a vessel by which the mind may leave its host. Matters of the spirit manifest themselves in spiritual form, calling on individuals to focus on mental states contrary to those physical. Interesting here is how often both traditional and technological spirituality combine – Internet sites concerning spirituality grow increasingly plentiful constantly. Sites like Partenia.org offer visitors the ability to engage in an entirely online diocese of the Catholic Church, while Islamonline.net offers current fatwa information – these networks offer users not one form of an out-of-body-experience, but two.

Still, this phenomenon would be of nothing but a passing interest were I unable to draw it back to the concept of culture and art specifically – surely, Ascott’s discussion of La Plissure du Texte or Jackson Pollock are more than pertinent to the notion of networked and projected mentalities. As I claimed in a previous posting, art is unique in that it emphasizes the natural process of perspective; although everything in life requires dimensions by which it might be analyzed, art directly challenges the witness to perceive that perspective itself. In the manifestation of an out-of-body-experience, whether it be bolstered by an online community or materialized through prayer, actors engage in a dramatic attempt to remove themselves from perspectives caused by the natural progression of time; an avatar in Second Life has the reputation of a naïve child, and it is through projecting your consciousness that one might conceive more what is outside the body than in. Most important to the advent of interactive art is the concluding emergence of some new concept – taking bias and perspective out of that equation might result in the emission of something foreign to that perspective, much as World of Warcraft characters may attempt when gender-bending their avatars.

Like an form of interpretation, it is a challenge to consistently revaluate your own perspective; however, through that disconnect it is often so much easier to connect to something new and valid.

Read more!

Week 5 Section 1: The Body 2.0

Since the beginning of time, humans have had the desire to become something better than themselves. Whether they discern "better" to be bigger, stronger, faster or smarter, the prospect of human improvement is closer than ever before. Science and technology are progressing at such a pace that new self-improvements are available at an incredible rate. Gene therapy, while still in its infancy, promises betterment at the cellular level, changing the way our bodies interact with the world around us. Artists, scientists and cultural critics alike are finding different ways to express their uncertainties and criticisms of these new ways of doing things. Among these critics, Stelarc is one of the most well known.

Stelarc is fundamentally a futurist whose performances deal with the technologies of tomorrow, generally based around his belief that the body is obsolete. On his website, it is proclaimed that his

"work explores and extends the concept of the body and its relationship with technology through human-machine interfaces incorporating medical imaging, prosthetics, robotics, VR systems and the internet. The interest is in alternate, intimate and involuntary experiences.

Bodies are both Zombies and Cyborgs. We have never had a mind of our own and we perform involuntarily conditioned and externally prompted. Ever since we evolved as hominids and developed bipedal locomotion, two limbs became manipulators and we constructed artifacts, instruments and machines. In other words we have always been coupled with technology. We have always been prosthetic bodies. We fear the involuntary and we are becoming increasingly automated and extended. But we fear what we have always been and what we have already become - Zombies and Cyborgs."

While Stelarc's performances and views certainly represent an extreme perspective on the future of the human body, or the "Body 2.0," he presents valid ideas and ultimately, criticisms, of what the human body has become and where it could go. His projects are controversial and at times offensive - Stelarc truly follows through in his preaching that, "the body is obsolete." Several of the projects which he has spearheaded show utter disregard for our physical selves and can be disturbing. It is not uncommon for the casual observer to fully comprehend what Stelarc is trying to express with his or her first glance; it takes multiple exposures and lots of critical thinking to get to the core of Stelarc's arguments.

Regardless of one's opinions of Stelarc and his predecessor's works, the message that they are attempting to convey is valid and ultimately applicable to everyone from all walks of life.

Read more!

Week 5 : Orlan

I am particularly interested in the idea of using a human body as a canvas for exhibition. Orlan's use of what is referred to as "carnal art" is quite bizzarre. I feel like she makes a strong statement in transforming herself through the use of plastic sugery. It is rather interesting considering we live in a society that puts a great deal of power in personal image, which is why plastic surgery has become such a social norm. I never thought of using this type of surgery to do anything else other than attempt to make oneself more aesthetically pleasing... but Orlan doesn't work that way. The way she transforms herself for the sake of her art is mind boggling. I don't necesarilly believe that she could continue performing these "self hybridations" for very long though. It seems like it could do serious damage to her health if she were to continue doing this.
I truly enjoyed how professor Vesna lead up to the discussion of Orlan by showing before and after pictures of celebreties how have gone through some ridiculous change with the help of plastic surgery. It really put her work into context and showed the relevance of the topics Orlan is adressing. Orlan is kind of a modern day dr. frankenstein but she does all of her work on herself. Morphing her image constantly to the point where she is generally unrecognizable is something that takes quite a lot of passion for the just for the sake of art. I enjoy the point she is making but I don't know if it is worth the risk of any health problems that might come up in her future.
Check out some of these real life celeb transformations:

Read more!

Jacob Karp - Week 5 - Bodily and Cellular Inspiration

This week’s concept of the body being the medium of art or the direct inspiration of art is one that I find fascinating and never realized how broad of realm it is. From Stelarc’s mechanical and artificial additional limbs to Orlan’s plastic surgery performances to the tensegrital quality of cells and the sculptures that have been directly inspired by this.

Because Stelarc has been previously discussed in previous weeks and Orlan’s performances are somewhat dated as so many people have undergone plastic surgery and the process to change and adapt one’s appearance is pretty common and understood today. Her performances of plastic surgery are connected to how many performers have had plastic surgery. I felt that Orlan’s message in her art was contrary to Stelarc that the body is not obsolete but rather so adaptable, so easily improved. Many of the people that have somehow risen to the top: famous performers, successful businesspeople, and other influential and monetarily well off people have undergone some form of plastic self-improvement surgery, whether it be liposuction and a tummy tuck, a nose job, or breast augmentation. This helps improve their image and be seen as a perfect (or closer to) being. It seems that the theme is that the body is not obsolete because it can be so easily improved and altered.

I was most interested this week in Donald Ingber’s article “The Architecture of Life”. The article analysis an attribute of cells called tensegrity. Tensegrity or tensional integrity is a structural quality caused by a uniform pull between all of the firm structural supports, which leads to a structure that mechanically stabilizes itself. This quality can make very beautiful and very unique cellular shapes. This art is the cell; the naturally occurring attribute of living organisms fundamental components is the art. This tensional integrity has been the inspiration of artists to create sculptures that have this quality also. I began searching tensegrity on the internet and discovered artist Kenneth Snelson. Snelson has constructed many sculptures that have a structure with tensegrity.

Kenneth Snelson claims that his art is based on nature in its natural state and involve “patterns of physical forces in three dimensional space. I find it amazing that the natural structure of a cell has inspired such incredible sculptures on the small and large scale. This is a perfect example of a scientific discover being evident in art, and a very geometric and mathematical form of art it is. Snelson would definitely qualify as a member of the 3rd culture with his amazing sculptures.

http://www.kennethsnelson.net/icons/scul.htm

Read more!

Week 4 - John Milinovich - The Prospect of Artificial Intelligence

Last week's discussion was of particular interest to me. We examined the prospect of artificial intelligence and whether it is somewhat of a possibility in our near future. I have grown up in the era of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas - growing up, AI just seemed like the next logical progression in computer technology.

Looking back on movies like "A.I," "Bicentennial Man," "Star Wars," and "I, Robot," I have realized how far off and how 'sci-fi' the movies are. Granted, I never believed that I was going to have a wookie or a robot servant with a sense of self anytime soon, but it just somehow seemed plausible.

The case studies examined this week helped me realize how far off this science fiction driven vision of the future we actually are. A robotic head that exudes facial expressions and has motion tracking took around fifteen computers, several years and millions of dollars of research to create. Even after all this, it is still not perfect and, well, it is just the head.

As much as I want to believe that there will be fully independent robots within my lifetime, the prospect just seems too far off. If it takes a room full of processors controlled by humans to get a "head" to do only the most primitive of tasks, how much manpower would be necessary to create a full body - a mechanized clone if you will? Unfortunately, the answer to this is merely, "too much."

I do realize that I have been examining a very science fiction-esque definition of artificial intelligence. The fact is, AI is being used in many different settings already, just not in the R2D2 fashion. It is already implemented in stop lights across the country and in several popular computer games. Here is a little anecdote on how artificial intelligence is affecting the average college student:

My roommate has found a lot of free time on his hands this quarter and one day when he was bored he decided to download and play the new Command and Conquer game. Very quickly he realized that he wasn't playing the computer in the traditional sense. Every move he made, the computer adapted and did not make the same mistake again. Lo and behold, he ended up losing over half of the games he played.

It just goes to show that despite the slow progression of SciFi's perception of artificial intelligence, it is popping up around us more than mos

Read more!

art doesn't have to be weird

INSERT INTRO!!! INSERT BODY!!!

After watching the movie on riday and seeing the pseudo 1984 rendition of a science fiction story it got me to thinking why does art mixed with science have to produce this brain child of weird. I understand the desire to be edgy and to push the limits of art in ways they haven’t been pushed before and most of the time those artists succeed in doing so. They create the oddest stuff and yet I don’t understand why that has to be. I have looked at a great deal of the art we have been studying and I have seen a lot of art’s impact on science but the only impact I am really seeing science have on art is resulting in science fiction or creepy independent films.

Artists like Chris Cunningham are brilliant. He is creating some revolutionary film footage and its is really mold breaking. It makes the viewer feel uncomfortable and that is what art is supposed to do, Cunningham succeeds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wXVnnNzob4

There is also the link with technology and art. Science is technology in a sense, but I don’t think it has to be lumped in that category. I think the water exhibit that Professor Vesna installed in Spain is even more science that an any technology. Yes the screen that the projection was on and the projection itself is technology but the exploration of water is art. Science in itself is art. The study of planets and the way our solar system functions is art. http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/waterbowls/bowls.php

There are artists that are using the magnifying glasses to bend sunlight to hit wood and create designs with the heat. This is using science to produce art that doesn’t have to be pushing the edge, but just creating beautiful pieces of art work. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/art/art-images.html

The bond between art and science can also be seen in artists work like Derek Winstanley who uses his life as a scientists to have a creative influence on his art form. http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2002/oi021213.html

Derek Winstanley created the "Evolution" series in 1977 while In Canada to express a scientific concept through art. The series includes (top to bottom) "Single Cell," "Splitting of the Cell," "Embryonic Form" and "Birth," all in black walnut, and "Man" carved from cedar. 14


There are also more common forms of art that we do not acknowledge as being science and art put together such as digital photography and AutoCad which is a program that digitally draws out set designs for theatre and can also be used in architecture.

Robert Berdan is a Canadian artist who works for a company called science and art and has a passion for science and photography. http://www.scienceandart.ca/gallery/gallery.php?search=category&categoryID=350&sessID=e21bf4872960edf1e7a03c945e87d9f7
Some of his work includes digital images of caffine crystals that have been turned into works of art. He also has a photo of a dog flea, and a snail embryo. All photos of images from the science world that he has turned into art. This art form is definetly pushing the edge of what we think of as art but it is not really grotesque or shocking, it simply makes you think about normal objects in a different light. Which in my opinion is what art, especially photography is supposed to do!

Read more!

The Art of Imitation, Week4

Although I had previously not through of artificial intelligence research as art, the Stephen Wilson article does convince me that it is indeed an art form. Artificial Intelligence research that focuses on creating human-like intelligence, like many other forms of art, force exploration of what it means to be human and forces ordering to be made of human behaviors. This is the only way that this intelligence and behavior can be recreated. In fact, throughout history, art has focused on recreation. During the Renaissance, art work focused on recreating the world as perceived by the human eye. As soon as photography was invented, this became obsolete. Just as Renaissance artists used mathematics to create images that mimicked reality, computer scientists can use behavior sciences applied to computer science to mimic human intelligence. The art is in creating a program with the appropriate algorithms so that the machine can act just as a human brain does.

There is nothing magic about human intelligence that cannot be recreated by a machine. Once order is given to all human behavior at the chemical level, there is not reason that artificial intelligence can equal human intelligence. The processing power of human intelligence is governed by all the same physical limits as electronic devices. Since we are reaching the physical limit of processing power and memory in a given amount of matter because of the atomic nature of matter, we must be near or have already passes what is needed to create human intelligence. Humans go through decades of self-programming through exposure to the world to reach the adult state of intelligence. If a computer were programmed appropriately to learn as humans do, there would be no reason that a computer could not reach the same state of intelligence. In Turing’s article on computer intelligence, he states that the amount of memory contained in a human brain is somewhere between 10^10 and 10^15 bits of data. Already, we have devices that can hold many more times as many data as this. Thus, there is no reason that a computer cannot program itself to have human intelligence after years of “learning.” Responding to the argument that a machine could never produce art, the link http://artbots.org/2003/participants/MEART/ shows a machine that can actually produce art. The robot in the link is semi-living, meaning that the art relies of living brain cells. However, software is used to read and stimulate the brain cells, creating the art.

Whether strong AI, intelligence that is conscious and has a “understanding” of the information that is processes rather than just uses rules and algorithms to process the information, can exist is a different debate. First of all, it must be determined if there is such a thing as consciousness and if human intelligence is no different from computational intelligence. The human brain maybe running on a program based upon rules and algorithms that are just like the program that controls a machine. None the less, the art of artificial intelligence research is able to explore these questions.

Read more!

Alexander Yeh; week 3 ; Guitar Smashing Art

I was not very impressed by Professor Sean Dockery’s works at first with his circuit-bending exploits. It did not seem to me that his piece was innovating nor did I consider it to be art. It was very predicable exactly what sound would be created when he connected two circuits together. Any electrical engineer would be able to make the calculations necessary to do this. He was merely undoing much of the signal processing that is done by the original engineers of the keyboard to create his “new” sounds. However, I was much more impressed by his installation with paper tape and President Bush’s speeches. The piece truly takes advantage of interaction with the audience and the cranking of the machine by the audience cannot be replaced by a motor while having the same effect.

Furthermore I do not consider the Robot Paintings to be true kinetic art. To me, it was more algorithmic art than kinetic art. The instructions that the robots have when painting as well as the algorithms that the robots use in painting the pictures could be considered the art. The robots that paint might as well be computer printers. Given the same set of instructions, just like a printer, the robots would create the exact same piece.

What impressed me most was the loud, destructive art from artists such as Survival Research Labs. The pieces really show society’s fixation with destruction. I had not thought before that a German WWII V1 rocket being ignited in public could be considered art but thinking about the reactions of the audience, I believe that it is in fact art. Gustav Metzger’s Manifesto on Auto-Destructive art tells what destructive art is all about. The most notable portion of the manifesto is the part, “Auto-destructive art is the transformation of technology into public art. The immense productive capacity, the chaos of capitalism and of Soviet communism, the co-existence of surplus and starvation; the increasing stock-piling of nuclear weapons - more than enough to destroy technological societies; the disintegrative effect of machinery and of life in vast built-up areas on the person,...” I believe that destructive art is the most effective art form in showing the true nature of what society has become with its new capabilities with industrialization. According to the site http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr225/jones.htm, Gustav Metzger came to the United States as a refugee from the holocaust after his whole family was exterminated in the holocaust, and this is what probably led to Gustav’s criticisms of society. The site http://vienna.metblogs.com/archives/2005/05/gustav_metzger.phtml tells that most of his art works centered on the nuclear arms race in the 1950s and 60s and environmental destruction. Metzger did not only tackle the high profile topics of society’s self-destruction, but also focused on practices in the art community. For example, he once added a layer of acid in a painting to so that it would slowly disintegrate in order to protest the replication of art. His influence was wide. Interestingly, it was also Gustav Metzger who inspired the guitars smashing of Pete Townshend in the band The Who.

Read more!

Jacob Karp - Week 3 - Resenting order and defying bodily limitations

This week’s lectures revealed a very unconventional approach to scientific art/artistic science. The inclusion of robotics and “cyborg-like” technologies in art is one that undeniably branches art and science. The works of STELARC and Survival Research Lab are unlike anything I have ever been exposed to before. Survival Research Lab’s utilizes crude robotic machines and Tesla coils in their crude, violent, mechanized performances. These performances entrance the audience watching it with its explosions and synthetic lightning (tesla coils) in what is seemingly a state of mayhem. These huge industrial mechanical contraptions are the work of Mark Pauline.

Mark Pauline’s creation is aimed to create “resentment towards the forces of order”. The show includes robotic frightful beasts like tyrannosaurus and medusa moving to metal grinding industrial music and during some performances crickets are released into the crowds to induce more resentment as was the aim. I find it interesting that the entire aim of the performance is for the crowd to turn against industrial growth/modernization and technological advances that bring order and structure. I find this interesting because these artistic performances are employing science as an artistic medium but the idea being conveyed is against the very medium of innovation used.

http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/CyberCulture/SurvivalResearchLabs.html

Stelarc, I found equally interesting. His work is all based on “enhancing the body” by using technological extensions (like artificial limbs) and suspension by hooks that pierce into his skin on his back. He feels that the “body is obsolete” and we must move towards enhancing our beings through technology. His ultimate conception is that of cyborgism. He puts his body through intense pain to realize his physical and psychological limitations of his being/body and he then searches for technologies to enhance the body’s abilities. The skin is the divider that separates the soul from the world and by mutilating it through piercing and tearing, Stelarc feels he is dissolving this divider. Stelarc serves as his own subject of his performances. These performances aim to incite thoughts that the body is limited and by introducing technologies we can increase our potential and rid ourselves of limitations. I thought this was interesting because we do employ artificial internal body parts be stronger than we normally would be. Take defibrillator or prosthetics or replacement joints of steel, these things rid the individual of its limitations and don’t compromise our view of the individual as a person. So by integrating technology into our bodies we become stronger (as we become more and more a cyborg being) but we remain a person our soul unaffected and no longer blocked from the world by our skin and bodily limitations.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/stelarc/a29-extended_body.html

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 3 - Inefficiency to breed success

The study of robotics has to be one of the oldest fantasy-driven veins of scientific research, by which fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey or Star Wars have always been enticed by the prospect of an android of sentient mechanical being. This fact alone is incredibly pertinent to the crossbreeding of science in art in that it demonstrates a field in which intentions and innovation make or break the connection.

A good example of such a phenomenon is the work of Stelarc, in which the man proclaims “the body is obsolete.” Depending on the context by which one perceives Stelarc’s work, two different conclusions can be drawn. Were Stelarc intent on his performances being nothing more than the aspiration for science with absolutely no message or commentary on society, it can be surmised that his experiments would be treated as shoddy quackery by the scientific community. Although he has undoubtedly made progress with his bionic arms, faux stomachs and curious multipedal vehicles, it is a grander question still to ask if he has contributed more to science than he has to social awareness of the science and the nature of his queries. Viewing his work in the context of performance art one might suggest he is brilliant, challenging onlookers to consider the importance of appendages and those extensions we use in daily life through his demonstrations and performances.

From this it seems that if an artist-scientist like Stelarc has two goals (one being to push an idea, another being to progress a science) that he will not necessarily succeed at the latter if intent on the former. Looking at other robotic aspirations such as Honda’s Asimo or the Einstein robot, which are considered more in the vein of pure science, it is easy to see how shifting the perspective changes what is expected of the artist-scientist. The beauty of art is that expectations are few, other than those held by fellow artists. In science not only do other scientists expect progress but the public does as well. This is not to say that Asimo is not artistic nor that it does not suggest something about the human form and scientific progress, however its intention as a work of science alone means the creators must uphold the highest levels of quality to maintain integrity as progressive science.

The Survival Research Labs are an excellent complement to this notion of expectations within a context – for someone viewing their performances with the mindset of pure science, how does a buzz-bomb engine or a shoddy 2x4 chucker move science forward? It may be that their inefficient caterpillar robot works poorly to suggest something of the science it emulates, but given a science perspective it is essentially a failure. Perhaps that failure is the message itself; however, in science failures do not continue to get funding and tend to suggest other avenues of experimentation required to arrive at success.

Within the process of scientific experimentation it is consistently important to respect the method of trial-and-error. Just as trying an experiment despite its failures may perpetuate some notion about how we interact in society, a success too can be considered in light of its suggestive contributions to society in lieu of those material. I only hope that the seemingly pervasive mechanical inefficiencies inherent to the artwork of SRL and Stelarc are indicative of more than just a message and that actually brilliant scientists would not perpetuate failure to successfully progress an ideal.

However, this leads us to question what good science entails…

Read more!

Jacob Karp - Week 3 - Resenting order and defying bodily limitations

This week’s lectures revealed a very unconventional approach to scientific art/artistic science. The inclusion of robotics and “cyborg-like” technologies in art is one that undeniably branches art and science. The works of STELARC and Survival Research Lab are unlike anything I have ever been exposed to before. Survival Research Lab’s utilizes crude robotic machines and Tesla coils in their crude, violent, mechanized performances. These performances entrance the audience watching it with its explosions and synthetic lightning (tesla coils) in what is seemingly a state of mayhem. These huge industrial mechanical contraptions are the work of Mark Pauline.

Mark Pauline’s creation is aimed to create “resentment towards the forces of order”. The show includes robotic frightful beasts like tyrannosaurus and medusa moving to metal grinding industrial music and during some performances crickets are released into the crowds to induce more resentment as was the aim. I find it interesting that the entire aim of the performance is for the crowd to turn against industrial growth/modernization and technological advances that bring order and structure. I find this interesting because these artistic performances are employing science as an artistic medium but the idea being conveyed is against the very medium of innovation used.

http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/CyberCulture/SurvivalResearchLabs.html

Stelarc, I found equally interesting. His work is all based on “enhancing the body” by using technological extensions (like artificial limbs) and suspension by hooks that pierce into his skin on his back. He feels that the “body is obsolete” and we must move towards enhancing our beings through technology. His ultimate conception is that of cyborgism. He puts his body through intense pain to realize his physical and psychological limitations of his being/body and he then searches for technologies to enhance the body’s abilities. The skin is the divider that separates the soul from the world and by mutilating it through piercing and tearing, Stelarc feels he is dissolving this divider. Stelarc serves as his own subject of his performances. These performances aim to incite thoughts that the body is limited and by introducing technologies we can increase our potential and rid ourselves of limitations. I thought this was interesting because we do employ artificial internal body parts be stronger than we normally would be. Take defibrillator or prosthetics or replacement joints of steel, these things rid the individual of its limitations and don’t compromise our view of the individual as a person. So by integrating technology into our bodies we become stronger (as we become more and more a cyborg being) but we remain a person our soul unaffected and no longer blocked from the world by our skin and bodily limitations.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/stelarc/a29-extended_body.html

Read more!

Kelley Lonergan - Week Three

During third week, I was more interested in what was talked about in section rather than in lecture. It seems that what we talk about in lecture always brings up the question of “What is art?”
So, what is it?
Whatever her purpose was, the statuette Venus of Willendorf has been dated back to over 22,000 BCE, over a thousand times older than our current ages. If “art” has been around so long, and we still have yet to decide on a clean-cut definition, perhaps we should start believing that art really is indefinable.

As we sit and try to place labels, artists of today are literally stretching the indefinability of art to infinite lengths. During section, a few kids in the class complained that Casey Reas’ work was not truly “art.” A computer cannot be used for art. A simple screensaver cannot be praised. Beauty has to at least come from some amount of effort.
If we could travel back in time to about one hundred years ago, I bet we could find a similar argument used against some of the very first daguerreotypes. A photograph could not really be art, it was a form of cheating, a painting without skill. I am sure some people of today would still agree with that statement. Followers of Cartier-Bresson or Mapplethorpe would probably say otherwise.

In section, we looked at Sol Lewitt’s “Sentences on Conceptual Art.” We elaborated on one sentence that really struck a cord: Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution. I have agreed with this statement for many years, but only now have our paths collided. A friend and I always argued about our tastes in art: she liked strictly classical art, but I did not mind a little bit of modern. She could not bear to look at a Rothko, and could not comprehend what I saw in Magritte, but yet we still shared a favorite time period, the Baroque. She preferred a painting of a tree that perfectly resembled its subject to a mediocre rendition that perhaps used a new technique, or made a statement. Who is to say What Is Art? To be honest, I find the Mona Lisa kind of boring, but that does not mean I will try to criticize the world’s most famous painting.

I am interested to see what people’s reactions are to Sean Dockray’s lecture. I found his presentation fascinating. Some might argue that Sean’s degree in engineering from Princeton has become a waste based on his current profession, but how could that judge that? I am sure people will criticize his work, stating that is not art, just playing with toys. But how can one judge against how clever his pieces were? I may be somewhat biased, again, because I knew someone in his Pack-Man video, but Dockray’s work is undeniably interesting and engaging. We need to open our horizons to what could be the future of art.
Explosions thrill me as much as ancient Greek black-figured vessels, but I cannot complain. Art is art is art. Sometimes comprehension does not always denote skill and beauty. And vice versa.

Read more!

kelley lonergan - Week Two

From the issues addressed this week in class, I really thought Casey Reas’ work and lecture were good examples of the tie between art and science. I may be a little biased because I had been introduced to Casey’s work before, but I still think what he does is mind-boggling. I think there is the misconception that Casey does not really do his art, that the computer “does it for him,” but if one sits down to think about Processing, about how this guy made up his own language and this language creates “stuff,” it is almost hard to truly grasp.
I think Casey’s art can be compared to the “process” of photography: you set up a scene, you let it go, you take a picture, you develop the film, you expose the image, you process the image, you dry the image. Perhaps Casey’s art is more like a picture taken from inside the darkroom, because how can we not say that the process of photography involves no art? Is it not a perfect co-existence of art and science? Just as Escher’s art was mathematical but never explicitly about math, does a work have to involve cells and bacteria for it to be seen as one with science?
Perhaps my opinion is born from complete ignorance, but I did not find the fractals to be something of beauty. Maybe I do not exactly understand what they are, and my lack of knowledge impairs my appreciation of something that I should be appreciating, but, to me, the fractals looked like screensavers on acid. Dividing cells infinitely is an idea I find beautiful, but fractals are not my ideal application of that concept.
The difference between Mandelbrot’s fractals and Casey Reas’ art, I feel, is that Mandelbrot’s fractals were ends to mean, whereas Casey’s processes were more of means to an end. If we look at the text that creates Reas’ art, we see derivatives, sin and cos, functions, an entire language that perhaps some of us can relate back to calculus, but in this context, most cannot comprehend. The mathematical symbols seem to go on for ages and somehow, to the non-techie, magically transform into lines upon lines of natural movements that can create fragile, natural shapes.
When looking up fractals on the internet for better understanding, I came across several articles relating fractals to art, especially to the art of Jackson Pollock (http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html). Fractal patterns were found in the paint splatters of Pollock’s work. I think, in this regard, is where we can find the true connection between art and science, art and nature, art and nature, and all of the other etceteras. That we can find a pattern in something so seemingly abstract and random should be meaningful.
In that sense, we can relate these found fractals back to the mathematical golden ratio that I discussed in my previous blog. Perhaps there is a rhyme and reason to beauty.

Read more!

Alexander Yeh - Week 2

As an electrical engineering major with an extensive background in mathematics and computer algorithms, the lectures this week were very appealing to me. I had before thought that the algorithms and mathematical functions that I have previously studied were artistic, find beauty in their ability to be simple in nature but yet have great power in forming solutions or executing processes. However, I have never seen the beauty in mathematics expressed the way that I have seen in this class.
Before this class, I have seen mathematics used to create pieces of art, such as in signal processing and its use in creating or enhancing music, altering images, and altering video. However I haven’t seen mathematics itself represented in the art work.
In the mathematical art that I have seen, the most appealing to me have been the works that are purely mathematical or algorithmic in nature, without manipulation by the artist to create a specific form. With purely mathematical and algorithmic art, every aspect of the work, from the coloring to the shading, has some meaning in the mathematical system or is a direct result of the simple underlying algorithm. The artist did not manipulate the formula to modify a small portion of the visual form of the work. Thus, mathematical art works and algorithmic art tends to follow a simple formula or recursive algorithm. In these works, the piece if art is in the algorithm itself or the formula itself, and the visual form of the work is just how the art work is expressed. From these pieces, it is easy to see the beauty within our mathematical systems and simple algorithms.
The article about algorithmic and mathematical art found at http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t1/20040113_cmaci_larcu.html shows a bit of the evolution of algorithmic/mathematical art. Before the introduction of computers, it was difficult to visualize complex mathematical formulas in graphical form beyond a couple of dimensions. However, upon the introduction of computers, visual models of multi-variable, multi-dimension equations could be graphed easily and the beauty of these formulas could be appreciated. For example, this work of art is merely the graphical form of a three dimensional function.



The inception of computers also allows non-terminating recursive functions to be continuously evaluated, leading to works of art that allows the viewer to visualize an evolutionary algorithm or fractals. Computers also allows the visualization of geometry in higher dimensions, which while cannot be directly graphed like function of three or fewer dimensions, can be represented in three dimensions with formulas leading to works such as:



Computers are at the center of mathematical and algorithmic art, and the exhibitions of Casey Reas that he showed us during his lecture showed us just that. I found it excellent how in his works, Casey Reas clearly showed that the art was in the algorithm. He was able to show the algorithm from the software level with the machine code, showed all the processing with the exposed hardware, and showed the visual form the work with his prints.

Read more!

Jamie Summers - Week 2

I found this week’s topic of mathematics in art to be very interesting. I have lightly studied art history, and so I was already somewhat familiar with the progression of the 3D perspective in art during the Renaissance. The material in the readings, however, was new to me. I was not aware of the effect of the concept of the fourth dimension on art. Not being a physicist, I had to do some Wikipedia-ing to learn about the Theory of Relativity and non-Euclidean geometry. I still don’t quite understand some of the higher concepts, but I am beginning to get how these concepts could inspire and influence artists. After doing the reading, I decided to do some more research on Kandinsky. I know that he is a very famous artist, but my limited art history knowledge was lacking in this area. I found a website that described his compositions and their relationships to geometry.

This piece “Composition IX” is said to be fairly decorative. The diagonal colors give it a quality that causes the geometric shapes to seem to float in air. The figures have an organic quality that allows them to break from the traditional Euclidean geometry. This piece also breaks from the traditional one-point perspective championed in the Renaissance. Its abstract quality rises from the fact that there is no real horizon line. None of the lines converge into a convenient point. This is the quality that Herderson speaks of in our reading “The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art: Conclusion.”

This second piece by Kandinsky, “Composition VIII” was my personal favorite. It seems to show a feeling of chaos using just straight lines and arcs of circles. This is quite a feat to accomplish using just elements that create only feelings of boredom in so many students. :-) Again, the non-use of the traditional techniques of perspective and the non-Euclidean geometry shown by the curved lines add to the feeling that Kandinsky is trying to portray, that is, one of chaos and disarray.

I was fascinated by the collection of works by Kandinsky and their relationship to geometry. I would not have thought that such simple shapes could create such strong feelings and portray such deep concepts. It makes me think that even a hopelessly left-brained scientists like me can create art. I suppose the artistic part is the creation of the balance between the elements. I probably could not evoke much more than sympathy if I tried to create a work using such mathematical shapes.

On a completely different note, I would like to pose a question in response to the person who asked whether Casey Reas’s works were actually art. I would like to question whether they are actually math. I find that he just used properties of shapes to create works that were pleasing to the eye. Perhaps my view of math is too black-and-white and narrow, but I find it hard to buy into that what he is doing is actually math when no calculations are involved. I guess this brings into light the question of “What is math?” I suppose that this is a question as deep as “What is art?”

Read more!

vrizepeda - week2

Since this was my first week attending class I really did not know what to expect of the class. I kind of had an idea of what the class was about, but I really did not know what to look forward to. On my first day of lecture I got more of an idea of what the class was about. I hadn’t really thought about how art and science were linked to one another. To be more specific in regarding this week’s topic, I didn’t really know how math and art could be related to one another. It was very interesting to see how over the years many artists have tried to create three dimensional paintings by using mathematics. Before I used to think that these types of things did not involve mathematics at all, but after seeing the films and hearing the lecture I saw how even drawing a painting involves precise mathematics. I remember in high school when I took a drawing my art teacher would always talk about linear perspective, but I never really thought much of it. Until now I realize that it’s all just math. I had never really thought when artists started drawing paintings in three dimensional views. Many artists attempted and failed to draw in linear perspective. The first attempt was by Duccio with his painting Annunciation 1316. His came close to being three dimensional but it was a little bit off. Many artists tried after this but failed until Brunelleschi. He was the first one to make a correct attempt of three dimensional drawings using liner perspective. One of the other things we discussed in class that dealt with the use of mathematics in art was that of Mandelbrot’s fractals. When I first saw Mandelbrot’s work I was just amazed. I didn’t know that so much work and how much precision went into these types of works. It was really interesting to see how precise Mandelbrot had to be when creating his pieces of work and how such amazing pieces can be created by using mathematics. Mandelbrot’s work closely relates to that of Professor’s Reas. I was in complete awe when I saw the type of work that Professor Reas did. At the same time his work seemed extremely difficult but yet easy to do. The way he explained it made it seem like an easy thing, just by calculating some simple mathematics we could create the type of work he does, but yet it is very complex at the same time.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 1

This week’s lecture series was incredibly interesting. I have always known that there was a cult following for the overlap of math and art, but Casey Reas’ works really piqued my interest.

His work meshed two fields of study that have always infatuated me and awed me: those of computer science and art. This hybrid category combining both fields takes the idea of the “creative design” to a place I had never envisioned. It is the ultimate accretive art form: it creates itself.


After lecture I went back to my dorm room to share some of my newly found knowledge with my roommates and do some more research. After giving one of my roommates a quick recap of the lecture (including pictures), he raised an interesting question: is this really art?

The traditional definition of a piece of artwork implies that there is a set author or group of authors who can be credited with the piece’s creation. With the work of Reas and those like him, though, the computer is the main author. Granted, humans are creating the programs that create the image, but I am not sure if this really holds up. Companies who make canvases and art supplies, for example, are not considered artists but merely credited with producing a means to an artistic end. In Reas’ case, he is creating an environment in which the computer creates images within certain parameters set by the coder.

It seems to me that art, as defined in a broader sense (any result of human creativity) would take the software that Reas designed as an art and the images that the software creates as a product of the process. Regardless of which stance you take, though, it is incontrovertible that Casey Reas has birthed a process that will change digital artistry and the art scene permanently.

Read more!

Nolan Bennett - Week 2

The study and practice of art has always required the use of some medium – paints, pens, people, places, pictures, and so on. Although the use of a particular medium is often an indication of a popular art movement at the time of a piece’s inception, mediums go as far as images do in the demonstration of an idea and concept. Performance art itself is a rare form in which the medium is live, often composed of not only bodies but reactions, actions and emotion. Because of the unique role in which interpretation is so inherent to the definition of art, mediums construct whole ideas and perspectives by which the viewer might interpret an artist’s decision to use candle wax or the shavings of a number two pencil.

It is in this fashion that art is understood as naturally interdisciplinary – as any interpretation of life, it must be. The concept of “art” is merely theory without an application, just as sociology or the study of history is. For an artist to provoke by using a lead paint base or affixing jelly beans to Styrofoam he or she must connect not only in art but through some other form of curriculum, whether it be current events (Political Science), depression (Psychology), spirituality (Theology) or any other aspect of human life. To conceive art as independent and isolated is to take from it that which defines it – it is to expect a politician to discuss election plans without a platform.

The correlative nature of art suggests that claims to the separation of art from science, math, or any other study is practically unfounded if not impossible. As a human being among many, an artist (no matter how reclusive) is privy to many interdisciplinary aspects within his life – in the conceptualization of a piece there is psychology, in his experimentation, history and a knowledge of from whence he came. In kindergarten one is taught that red and yellow make orange – in 12^th grade we learn that black is the absence of all light. An artist who draws lines has at one point attempted the use of a straight edge, whether it be a ruler or the edge of his desk; her eventual decision to draw free-hand lines is a product of reacting to what is established scientific knowledge. To say that science is separate from art is to expect its being separate from social conditions. While those artists famous for stark lines and well measured parallelograms may have not known the rules of geometry by which their aesthetics pleased the eye, their intuitiveness to the study derived from the conditioning of people affected by progressive human science.

As Prof. Vesna well displayed during the first lecture, many stereotypes for both science and art exist – but it is crucial to acknowledge that not only is science not confined to “mad scientist” imagery, but that of “scientist” as well. Too often do we limit the terminology of science to the same elements that compose public media scares – while biological instruments are an example of science they are no more so than a wooden ruler. The very brushes with which artists create are engineered in a factory; that factory conceptualized by an architect. To suggest that art and science are too separate is to disregard every aspect of science that makes up any aesthetic sought by artists today. The employment of test tubes and vials in performance art is no more heavily connected to art than the impressionist’s depiction of the human face.

In the end, it’s all political – the only difference between those former examples is the message insinuated. However, it is important to not lose sight of that key aspect of art, the idea of interpretation – in claiming that one is more scientific than the other we force perspective and tragically falter in understanding what is actually a scientific beauty in both.

Although, this is just my interpretation.

Read more!

Jacob Karp - Week 2 - Math and Art

After this week’s lectures, I must acknowledge the fact that mathematic patterns can be incredibly beautiful. Tessellations, fractal patterns and Casey Reas’ computer-based work are astonishing and have so much aesthetic beauty.

After the lecture on Monday, regarding the introduction of depth of field into artwork that had previously been solely two dimensional, I was shocked at how sad the attempts to reflect proper geometry and depth form were in earliest form. I really had taken for granted the level that math plays in basic art, with the effect of dimensions and planar accuracy. I’ve grown so accustomed to seeing photos, sculptures, and traditional paintings with proper proportions that I had never realized that it actually took experimentation and innovation to demonstrate them properly in a piece of art.

On another note, M.C. Escher and tessellations are not new to me, but I had never seen the mathematic element that fuels them. My previous encounters were about as deep as “Oh wow, that’s crazy” before flipping to the next page of whatever book I was reading at the time. Though having researched further into Escher’s work after his video introduction in lecture, I found his interest in mathematic figures and symmetry to be blatant.

I have also found tessellations in modern household furnishings like this lamp one can buy from IKEA that is an icosahedron; however, none are remotely as elaborate and intricate as Escher’s masterpieces.

Perhaps what I found most interesting during this past week was the Mandelbrot set and fractals. The Mandelbrot set is such an intricate, complex but beautiful pattern system. The idea that its aesthetics are created by a continuous repetition of itself is as incredible as the fact that the system is “infinite”.

While researching fractals I found a reference to Jackson Pollock, and abstract expressionist painter, whose work resembles splattering and random lines and drips. Apparently Pollock’s work has been analyzed with computers to reveal that they are actually composed of fractal geometry. At different levels of magnification it’s revealed that Jackson Pollock used the same patterns over and over. Jackson Pollock was originally not widely appreciated at first because at first glance it looks chaotic and simple and when it was first realized his work contained fractals the immediate claim was coincidence; however, his later works contain more complex fractal geometry indicating his work was intentional.

Apparently it has been proven that even in cases like Pollock’s work which is seemingly chaotic, people generally have an affinity towards images that have a fractal element. A theory exists that human’s natural liking of medium fractal images may be instinctual for it could have been necessary for survival back in our ancestral times.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

Read more!