Dr. Gekelman's art

I thought that Dr. Gekelman's lecture this week was really interesting, but also extremely intense. It was pretty difficult to follow the whole lecture with only a basic physics background, but non-the-less there were very fascinating points made. I thought that his description and explanations of what plasma is were very informative. Furthermore, I really enjoyed how he portrayed his research not only as interesting science, but then expanded it the broad scale of the sun, and how those same basic properties they were observing in the lab were present in nature itself.

I think my favorite part of his lecture was he art that he showed from his lab. All of his data was very colorful and fascinating, but I really like the images that they rendered to be unique. I remember the electric currents with lightbulbs on them, reflected in a mirror and also the all the currents that were changed into snakes. I really liked these images and I thought that this was a really interesting idea that we never really covered in the class.

In this class we discussed a lot about artists and how they were trying to portray science, and we discussed a lot of scientists and their research, but we never really covered any scientists that were doing art. I guess we did cover Dr. Gimzewski, but he is collaborating with an artist, so that is why I do not include him. Dr. Gekelman's art was really interesting because it not only portrayed real plasma physics data, I felt like the images were truly unique because they came from a different perspective. The physicists seemed to be using their art to make their data seem even more unique and try to make their science gain even greater importance. I felt that this contrasted with the objective of many of the artists discussed this quarter. Many of the artists seemed to be skeptical of the nature of science, and there art was often commenting on the abuse of science and how it can lead to destruction. While this is definitely a generalization, I enjoyed the work from Dr. Gekelman's lab because I really felt like his art was just because they were truly stimulated by their scientific data. It seems that some unprovoked stimulation like this could really make some of the best art.

I was searching online and I found some more images of some scientists who transformed their science into art. The example here is from a contest. The artwork is of silicon dust pellets suspended in a plasma and then illuminated by a laser. I think that this artwork is really fun to observe and interesting. I also like to see that in the art there arises scientific principles. For example, if you look at the way the dust is illuminated by the laser and aligned in the plasma it is a very regular and repeated fashion.

I think that I am saying all this because I really like art to be about nature because of all, isn't nature the most amazing thing. I really enjoy photography and I think that I really enjoyed the scientists data and experiments which are turned into art because they are creating unique, novel perspectives of viewing nature. In doing so, they are using art to portray nature's beauty.

Read more!

Week 10, Michelle Baba - Wrapping up the Class...

I can't believe that this is already the last blog (actually, I suppose I am a little relieved! i'm about due for a break from school...). Overall, this class ended up being a lot different than I expected - completely unlike what I imagined after reading the course information website while enrolling. I thought I was going to be learning about how to use technology and science for art rather than their relationship, the ethical dilemma, and art/science history. I must admit though, I did find myself interested in many of the topics presented. I just wish that we were able to study some of them more in-depth rather than just lightly grazing a huge list of works and subjects. I felt that Steve Kurtz (as a person & as a performance artist) was super fascinating and was a great way to start off the quarter. Learning about CP Snow's two cultures really changed how I view art and science, especially in the context of our school's campus and how it is strictly divided between north and south campus. Prior to the class, I would have never thought of the gap between the two - let alone how to bridge it. So being exposed to artists who integrate nanotechnology and robotics in their art (and reading about scientists and researchers who are inspired by artists' thoughts) was very interesting to me.

Guest lectures. So, our typical slide lectures were always packed with information, artists, and inventions that I had never heard of before... so they were enjoyable and most interesting. However, I do not feel that I can say the same about all of the Wednesday lectures. Though I did enjoy Sean Dockray's energetic personality and Casey Reas' inventive Processing program, some of the lectures from other artists and scientists at UCLA did not seem very related to the course topic of art,science, & techonology. But overall, for being the first quarter that this art/science/technology course was featured, it was very enjoyable and interesting. With some further development (and, as brought up once in discussion, the involvement of a possible second [south campus] professor?) this class has the potential to be great.

Read more!

Week 9, Michelle Baba - Art --> Science

We have always studied the differences between the "two cultures," determining how they have rivaled each other and led to a clear division between the science and art worlds. However, this week while learning about nanotechnology, we stumbled upon yet another question involving the dualing sides: Does science need art? And if so, how/why?

According to Wilson da Silva, an editor at Cosmos Magazine (www.cosmosmagazine.com), "if you boil it down to its most basic elements, science and art are not that far apart. Science is a framework human beings use to try and understand the physical universe. Art is a framework human beings use to understand their place in the cosmos."

Every year, there is less and less space for scientists to explore the universe and it seems that at times, the numbers of questions that bring meaning to such epic endeavors are dwindling. Science is all about the outcome, the finished product that serves a practical purpose. On the other hand, while science does seem to fulfill out physical need, art fulfills our souls and our spiritual side. Art is able to inform science, and communicate some things to the public that data and scientific equipment is not able to. It is able to introduce a new way of thinking that is driving by creativity and self-expression. The possibilities in the art world are virtually limitless...

I think it is interesting to see how the art and science worlds are approaching each other. Sure, we all agree that there is a distinct line separating the UCLA campus into the north (humanities) and the south (math/science) sides, however, they most definitely extend their influence beyond the Bruin Walk divider. One way that I like to see it is, nanotechnology would not exist without the artistic/aesthetic aspect and certain types of art (especially design/media arts) and high tech photos would not exist without the aid of science.

As said by one of Australia's leading Shakespearean actors and directors, John Bell: "Just as artists of the Renaissance were inspired by scientific advances and the discovery of the New World, so artists of today must be fired by science's probing into outer space, to the bottom of the ocean, to the origins of our cosmos and the beginning of time."

Read more!

Monica Tse - Wk 9 - A fantastical view of nanotechnology?

What the term “nanotechnology” encompasses seems to have broadened a great deal from its traditional notion of “the ability to construct items from the bottom up” to today’s national definition of “anything smaller than 100 nanometers with novel properties”. Originally, there seemed to be more of a mechanistic purpose utilized in engineering molecules, but now that this field of science has become more popular, I think that the economy and market have begun to play a role in how people understand nanotechnology.

!!!

As always, people are always trying to find the next best thing that will earn a profit, and it seems that today, this thing is nanotechnology. As I googled the uses of nanotechnology, I came across a list of consumer products that utilize nanotech. It was interesting to see how many different applications this science could be useful for (especially since I am not too familiar with it or its uses), but as I continued to scroll through the pages and pages of products, the more ridiculous they seemed to me. True, some of the products were legitimate, and I know that nanotechnology applied to other fields such as space exploration and research have exciting implications, but a great deal of them seemed useless. I felt like much of them were simply the result of businesses taking advantage of the nanotechnology craze in order to prey on consumer excitement and desire to be a part of the ‘high tech in-crowd’.

It made me wonder about the effects of nanotechnology’s rise in society. Yes, there are many implications from the idea of being able to build up from the molecular level, as much precision can be acquired, but are these implications something that can truly become reality? Drexler talks about how molecular machinery could guide molecules into specific positions, thus being able to create a product that is precisely constructed from the very smallest level. Under this notion, I understand why there would arise so much excitement about the possibilities of nanotechnology. But what about the length of time it takes to move these molecules around and the amount of time the organization of those molecules actually last. I was reminded of the lecture video of ‘UCLA’ being spelled out using molecular machinery. However, it took two days to create, and the molecules did not remain in place for very long. If using high tech machinery creates something that lasts only temporarily, how can there be EFFECTIVE mass-produced products that function true to its seller’s advertisement? I think that the rapid onset of nanotech-themed products that we use in everyday life – such as the mouse, keyboard, linens, air purifiers –only offers somewhat modified products that suppliers sell under the name of cutting-edge research in order to take advantage of the cultural craze.

Another concern that crossed my mind was the potential for an overdependence on technology whose reliability cannot be fulfilled by the actual technology. For example, on the previously mentioned nanotech consumer products list was a computer mouse that has a “Nano coating containing antimicrobial properties built in to protect the product from bacteria surviving on its surface”. Although in theory this MIGHT be effective, but is it actually effective? If the technology is not effective, it may create a false sense of safety for its users, causing them to haphazardly ignore the logical safety precautions such as washing their hands. This may perhaps be a stretch to say this, but considering past trends in society’s response to increasingly better technology such as the not completely true idea that hand-sanitizer can serve as a universal protector from common germs, I could see this as a potential result.

!!!

Read more!

How art and science cooperate

I really enjoyed the guest lecture this week. The reason why I felt that the lecture was so good is because it made some connections that I have been striving to understand all quarter. I was really interested in this class because of the idea of combining art and science, and how they could complement or contradict one another. However, throughout this whole quarter I have felt that the integration between art and science was not as apparent to me as it was to others.

I felt that many of the lectures and guest speakers highlighted several ideas which were constantly reiterated throughout the quarter. I felt like when we were discussing generative art, we were mainly discussing art and science being integrated because we were talking about using "intelligent" technology to create art. However, while this is integrated, it didn't satisfy me. Furthermore, when we began talking about molecular biology and transgenic art, it seemed like the artists were mainly trying to criticize science. It seemed that they were trying to create art that highlighted the dangers of genetics.

Furthermore, we had some guest lectures from some scientists that didn't seem to integrate art and science. One of the speakers seemed to be advocating the alternative of what the class was trying to accomplish, and the other speaker seemed to be stating that the integration of artists in science was in order to make pretty pictures that others could more easily understand. I was searching on the internet and reading about some nano-art and I found an article about Dr. Vesna's nano-art show. The main point of the article was that artists could make renditions of quantum mechanics and nanoscience that could make a complicated subject understandable for someone who doesn't have 15 years of math under their belt. I found other artists websites that did nano-art. They also claimed that their main objective was to make nanoscience more accessible to the public. I am still not satisfied with this integration of art and science. I think that there must be some more integral role for artists than to simply criticize science or to make science visible to the public. One could argue that it doesn't make sense for an artist's job be to critique science because they might not even know more about science than the average person. They may not have a more formal science education.

However, I thought that last weeks lecture made the connection that I was waiting for all quarter. When we were discussing nanoscience I thought that it was really interesting that years before it was feasible scientifically, a nano-artist explored the possibilities of nano-robots. I think that nanoscience is a perfect subject for artists because they can understand the basic principles and then allow their creative, free mind to explore all possibilities. I can't tell you how many nano-sculptures one can find online, and if that is what scientists are doing to advance science, then frankly they NEED the help of a different creative body to feed them creative, original, and clever boundaries to explore . I think that this is a great definition of how art and science can feed off one another.

Read more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

Week 7, "Instinct as a Misnomer"

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

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

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

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

... it will most definitely help...

Read more!

Monica Tse - wk.7 - Consciousness

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

instinct vs. judgement

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!