DESMA 9 - Art, Science & Technology - Spring 07

Week 10 Section 3 - Geckelman!

2007-06-11T00:07:00.001-07:00

Coming from a South Campus major with a somewhat rudimentary background in physics, but a greater interest in plasma and plasma technology I can safely say the Dr. Geckelman’s lecture was a bit over the top for the nature of this class. What he is doing is absolutely amazing and is mind blowing, but unlike Gimzewski from last week’s lectures, he failed to condense the information and make it a bit prettier for presentation purposes. Electromagnetism is confusing, yet he threw around terms and properties as if we got it, I honestly could only understand the very basics of the magnetic spins he spoke of measuring and manipulating. He touched on the amazing properties of plasma in this scientifically esoteric manner, showing graphs and diagrams of which I only recall the “birth of an octopus” and what is more, I do not remember what it referred to. I also felt it a bit off-color in light of our noble endeavors of bridging science and art for him to mention the only art in his presentation as being “pretty pictures.” Geckelman is most preoccupied, and rightly so, with his own research in plasma physics and I can only imagine how much he would want to expose us to the field without losing any of the complexity inherent in it.

I brought up Gimzewski, although I disliked his cavalier attitude in regards to research, because he represents exactly what I would imagine a scientist influenced by art should be like. Geckelman, Scerri, and even Taylor represent science in pure form and in all reality act as counterpoints to the artists mentioned in class, however their bridging of art and science left little impression on me. Science does not need to be so complicated; explaining it in a verbal fashion is easy really. Look at the news paper, world politics and international relations are far more complex than C++ code, but we as consumers of the media and newspapers demand it to be simplified without losing too much meaning. We do not buy journals on medicine, which are incredibly hard to read for any length of time, to hear about the latest advances and make decisions in politics. Why then should scientific presentation raise the left eyebrow of anyone not involved in that specific field? Geckelman’s work is fascinating, but I could not blame the people leaving in the middle of his lecture- I am a science major and I can safely say that my basic physics professors can make a ball rolling down a hill seem pretty cool; Geckelman’s physics lecture on Wednesday made me want to stab myself to keep awake.

While society and current thought has told us to dismiss this as just him being a boring scientist, I argue that his type of lecturing is more detrimental than it may have appeared. I brought Richard Dawkins up in a previous blog, but I feel I must bring him up again now. He represents lucidity in scientific thought. He is a Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. I mean how much do scientists suck at explaining if Oxford had to give this man a position specifically to present science in a clear and understandable way to the public. Tongue in cheekiness aside, I have to say that Dawkins is truly what the world needs to understand science. He is almost like an interpreter, taking the masses of scientific thought and condensing it into the written word; it is important to note that scientists like to do this as well, however as someone who is studying English as well as science I am moved to tears, not of happiness, every time I read a scientific journal. It’s horrible.

It is fine to speak as a scientist among scientists, but please have the decency to learn a little French if you’re in France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

(This has little to do with what I just said, but it's funny and New Scientist is a great Science journal that represents lucidity in thought without losing too much meaning.)

--- Week 10 --- Section 2 --- John "Matt" Ko ---

2007-06-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

This week we talked about space and space exploration. The next frontier. A lot has happened in space in the last 50 years. We've orbited the earth, landed on the moon, sent satellites to the outer reaches of our solar system. Because of the all of the advances in technology, so many things that seemed impossible are now very possible. Though there are still many things scientists hope to accomplish, they have already accomplished many things already.

Even before venturing into space, people have been fascinated by the cosmos. Astrology played a huge role in prehistoric and early historical times. People based their lives on what Astrologers could read from the stars. While astrology is now widely accepted as unscientific and often totally fabricated, people in those days took it extremely so seriously that kings sought the advice of the stars before taking any action. And today, though few believe that the stars will guide your life, just about everyone is still fascinated by space.

So much of today's pop culture has been influenced by space. Star Wars, Star Trek, Apollo 13, E.T., The X-Files, and many other movies and TV shows have all been influenced and inspired by space exploration. Many venture to the northern regions of the world, just to see the Aurora Borealis. It is not uncommon for people buy telescopes and go to observatories just to see Venus as large as a quarter. Thats not even that great and people go see it. They buy art and photographs of various planets and galaxies. Just recently, many people have joked about the now-no-longer-a-planet Pluto. People are obsessed with the concept of extraterrestrial life and UFOs. Websites about aliens are widespread throughout the Internet. Anywhere you go today, its very hard to go too long before running into the idea of space.

Just the vastness of space is incredible. Not only that, the universe is so complex that its hard to even pretend to comprehend it all. What Professor Geckelman shared with us about plasma just complicates the universe more! And yet we love it! The idea of plasma creating a network throughout the universe baffled me. I never knew that the universe was so organized, what with so many different galaxies floating and spinning around in what seems to be random patterns. I just assumed things drifted around aimlessly in space. But in reality, plasma and all of the magnetic forces created by it moves the universe. Its amazing!

Week 10 - Christopher Flannery - Space

2007-06-10T23:12:00.000-07:00

Though I was interested in a lot of what the guest lecturer Geckelman had to say, I found it very hard to follow his points. I am a music major and a lot of the terminology and comparisons he made went over my head. However when I did understand something, it was extremely interesting; such as using plasma lasers to break down waste to an atomic level, mixing plasma, and plasma’s effect on different material. I remember at one point he described “plasma” as having memory because when they sent a charge through it, it would react in one way for the first time, and then in a completely different manner when they executed the same exact charge. I found it hard to characterize a material as being conscious and thought that there must be a difference that they are unable to detect. It seems like there are many examples of unknowns and inconsistencies in scientific knowledge and particularly space, that there is mostly likely a mistake in a basic concept, such as gravity. Even when something is “proved” it is likely that it will later be expanded on with exceptions or disproved completely in the relatively near future. I think that an art piece could play on the fact that people are willing to trust science wholeheartedly and quickly despite the fact that it is mostly likely flawed.
I enjoyed when the guest lecturers made a direct connection to art and Geckelman did not do this at all. During other weeks, the connection and interplay was more obvious because the guest lecturer or Professor Vesna provided a lot of names and examples of collaborations between science and art. We discussed the effect that space exploration had on popular culture and world politics, however I didn’t form a strong reference to and effect on art during the lectures.
My favorite part of the week was The Powers of Ten video. I had seen this as a young child, but I don’t think that I grasped the concept firmly then. This video, which should be considered a work of art in itself, conveys one of the most important messages the study of space has to offer; our insignificance in relation to the rest of the universe.
Earlier this quarter we discussed using models of biological systems, such as a sunflower, to create a new system. From my knowledge of space, I know that there are complicated structures that we could also learn from. The visuals are absolutely breathtaking. I would not be surprised there were many examples of the buckyball structure in outer space, or if there are disturbing similarities between atomic and galaxy structure. There is a universal synergy on all scales. Beyond the design of the structures, the satellite images we have are works of art on their own. I found an amazing collection here: http://www.space.com/amazingimages/

Daniel Baker - Week 10 - The Sublime in Space, Plasma, and Art

2007-06-10T22:23:00.000-07:00

Of the many facts that Walter Gekelman discussed in this week’s lecture, one seemed to stand out as a symbol for the weekly subject: the idea that their our 100 billion galaxies in our universe, each with 100 billion stars each, meaning there are 100 billion x 100 billion stars in the universe. That’s a lot of stars. This statement, seemingly hidden amongst the various facts and comments about plasma, left a strong impact in the middle of the lecture. It was one of those moments where you realize just how unfathomably large our universe, and how tiny and relatively unimportant we are. Even if one’s actions significantly change the whole globe, our planet is just a microscopic fraction of the entire universe, so do our actions really count for anything? But it is also a positive realization as well, immensely freeing for our lives are so short, and we are so small, that every little moment counts and it seems ridiculous to waste any part of our lives, years, or even day. With so little to change, how can we sit around idly without even being responsible for our fraction of the universe that we actually can make a difference upon? It is an important job being tiny and relatively meaningless.

This is the art in space. Yes, there is the art that takes advantage of the physical characteristics of a dark vacuum or weightlessness, but what is really the art that is beautiful is that which utilizes the philosophical implications of space. The idea of space is both incredibly frightening and intensely intriguing, and therefore becomes a sublime subject in the realm of art. The sublime feeling of terror (but unreal terror) and pleasure that kicks in when confronted with something incomprehensible has been a popular subject of art for centuries. Caspar David Friedrich, one of the most well known painters of the sublime around 1840 is one such example.

His works deal with the sublime qualities found in nature, in the vast landscapes that both overwhelm and stimulate. These same feelings can be found in space, in its philosophical implications and its artistic representations.

The symposium on Tesla seemed to bring up some similar issues of the sublime in the inventor’s work. In the last speaker’s presentation on the Nevada Lightning Lab, there were descriptions on the new research center for the lab, featuring the largest Tesla Coils ever conceived. The size and power of the proposed coils are powerful enough to create actual bursts of lightning that split through atoms, a phenomenon called Relativistic Runway Breakdown that as of now, only occurs in real lightning bolts. These massive structures that have the power to mimic nature clearly conjure up feelings of the sublime, bringing forth ideas of both terror and a desire for more. Both Tesla’s works as well as the Nevada Lightning Lab’s deal with huge and almost magical concepts, creating an intimidating and fearful buzz surrounding their ideas, yet the scientists continuously yearn to delve deeper.

What seemed interesting in Gekelman’s conversation on plasma is that in order to understand the nature of the universe, one must look at an extremely small scale. All of Gekelman’s research is driven by the release of tinier and tinier sensors measuring the smallest characteristics of the subject. The item under inquiry is so small that special visualization techniques must be employed in order to understand what is going on at such a microscopic level. Similarly, art that deals with space must use some sort of method to display the hugeness of space in way that we can comprehend. Both areas rely on art to be able to comprehend ideas that are out of our normal range of cognition. Both the incredibly huge quality of space and the incredibly small quality of plasma provoke the same feelings of the sublime. Each is powerful and yet intriguing, and interestingly both deal with getting closer to understanding the fundamentals of the universe, but from completely opposite directions.

Last Week, Andrew Modlin, Section 2 Chris

2007-06-10T21:09:00.001-07:00

Now that the quarter is over, I can safely say that I really enjoyed this class. Every week had new and exciting information. I have especially enjoyed these last few weeks. Biotechnology, nano-technology, and space are really interesting and I am glad that I got to learn about these areas during my time at UCLA. This is why I thought this class was so different and something new. Every week we learned about different topics that many people would never cover during their regular schedule at UCLA. While I might be a little bias coming from an art background, but I really found all the science to be fascinating.

I think the nano technology week was especially interesting because of Professor Vesna's experience within the field. Since she has done some projects with Dr. Gimzewwski I felt that they had a bond of knowledge that would only be unveiled within this class. It was really interesting to see how art can be connected to these really complex scientific fields. Nano technology especially seeing as how there seem to be a lot of endless possibilities to what can be accomplished with this technology.

Now I do not totally understand the connections to space though. I found the lecture on plasma physics extremely interesting and weird but there was not really a connection to art. My only real suggestion would be to maybe make the class more focused on strong connection using the materials that are being talked about. More so then discussing the apparent problems that artists have with scientists.

While coming into the class I was very convinced that there was a really strong divide between the two cultures. The way everyone talks at UCLA about North and South campus makes it seem like no one gets along but this isn’t really true. There seems to be a lot of connections that can be made with science and many other fields. I was extremely surprised to see a giant buckminsterfullerene as an art piece.

It would be extremely interesting if the class took this knowledge a step further and has us make a projected that combined these aspects of art and science. I think that that would be really unique and would force people to think in ways they have not before. Maybe there could be groups that would come up with projects and then would have to go around campus and find the field for help. I think that would work really well since professor Vesna seems really well connect around campus.

I have especially found myself interested in the last two weeks and I keep finding amazing examples of projects that can be made with these types of sciences. One that I have found to be most impressive is the giant Tesla coils that were presented at Coachella Valley Music Festival. The cactus twins are some of the largest Tesla coils ever built. I saw them for the first time at Coachella and they were extremely beautiful. They were giant towers projecting huge beams of crackling purple light, which both interacted with each other. Not only did I find the light beautiful and amazing but also the sound they gave off was so different that it was also amazing. It was like they were performing electronic music with the interaction of a light show.

On a last side note I really just want to share this art piece with everyone. This artist Damien Hurst has made a carrier out of cutting cows in half and putting them in huge tanks of formaldehyde, basically. But this is from his newest show, showing that some artist can be extremely successfull.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/06/01/skull.art.reut/index.html

Dr. Gekelman's art

2007-06-10T20:38:00.000-07:00

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.

A Year in Review

2007-06-10T20:15:00.001-07:00

I have really enjoyed my time in this course. DESMA 9: Art Science and Technology is the only design class that I have taken during my three years at UCLA and I was truthfully pleased. Being a neighboring student in the Theater Film and Television program, it was very interesting to gather with fellow students 3 times a week and hear everyones reactions to various art installations. I did learn that no matter how many tired and cranky kids gather into one room at nine o clock in the morning, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to an agreement about the definition of "art." Which is actually the beauty about the subject.

It is the only subject one can study at this school that is going to be constantly changing and morphing into something new. I feel that everything else is so restrained compared to DESMA in the fact that"art" cannot be defined. Students in design are constantly developing new and original ideas that are going to be constantly changing the ways we perceive art and life. I think that is what makes classes like this so special. I was introduced to so many bizarre ideas that totally have influenced the ways I look at the world. The ideas of Stelarc, Steve Kurtz, Orlan, Tesla, Escher, Mandelbrot and Buckminster Fuller are something that I have never given thought to before this quarter and it excites me to learn about such creative people.

"Every great work of art has two faces, one toward its own time and one toward the future, toward eternity." - Daniel Barenboim

The work of these amazing artists is pushing the boundaries of art day by day. It gives me inspiration to take new leaps in theater film and television, to produce something new that has never been done before, to look at something from a different perspective and capture creative essence in a way in which other will be inspired to do the same. I think that everyone should be required to take art classes (esp the science majors.) I think it would put a spin on the lab work they are required to do and even evolve into amazing collaborations that could end up developing ideas like the ones i have studied for the past quarter.

I am ending this quarter fully satisfied with the knowledge i have retained. It has been amazing to have the opportunity to take such a interesting course, one in which will affect the way I critique art for the rest of my life.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder, and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: His eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

Alexander Yeh, week 10, Plasma Research Art

2007-06-10T19:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Tygue Luecke-Week 10-Plasma is Boring

2007-06-10T17:26:00.000-07:00

Assuming that honesty is invited in these blogs (and I hope it is, considering some of the personal opinions I have expressed through them over the course of the quarter), I just have to admit that Wednesday’s guest lecture nearly killed me. The speaker was clearly a very knowledgeable man who does very important work, but I can honestly say that I would have preferred his work to remain behind-the-scenes, or at least to be shared only with other scientists. He didn’t start off too bad, but by about 11:15, I swear I felt my soul trying to make its great escape from my body. Yeah, it was pretty bad. However, I was able to pull out a few tidbits of semi-useful knowledge of which I would like to speak… now.

I was glad to hear that our lecturer made at least one reference to art and science- that being the fact that artistic renderings of data sets are much easier to view and evaluate than is an incomprehensibly large set of numbers. On the other had, after saying that, he dropped into that endless explanation of plasma using measurements which were just as incomprehensible as the number sets he had discredited earlier. Needless to say, I was very pleased when Professor Vesna finally began a discussion about the supposed/attempted comprehension of such insanely small measurements, but became confused again when her questions were met by an answer that seemed to support the comprehension of such outlandish things as a hundred billionth of a second. I’m sorry, but no one is able to comprehend such nonsense. And what would be the point in being able to, anyway? I surely can’t find a reason for it. Unless I intend to study plasma, I suppose… but I’m not seeing that as a likely situation at the moment. Not very likely at all. Excuse me, I have become sidetracked. Now, where I was intending on leading this was toward the discussions of a changed perspective of people who are constantly forced to think in unfathomable scales. Unfortunately, my research of this topic has led to naught, but it is my personal belief that such people would cease to be shocked by any statistic thrown at them. I am no plasma physicist myself, and even I find it hard to be shocked sometimes when I hear that ten people died in some kind of an accident, when I have heard so many times of the thousands upon thousands of deaths that occurred during the Holocaust. And to hear that the earth houses a mere six billion people just seems ridiculous. Even after Wednesday’s lecture, I was thinking about how barely anything could shock me after hearing about billionths of seconds and millions of degrees. Seriously, Death Valley will ever seem impressive again. I cannot even imagine if I worked with such numbers on a routine basis. Life would never be the same.

Okay, so plasma may just be the most boring thing on the planet, but it sure does make some pretty pictures! Check this out:

http://images.google.com/images?q=plasma+images&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Week 10, section 4

2007-06-10T17:18:00.000-07:00

Even though it's the most overused quote, I think I like it a lot: "Space, the final frontier." There are SO many visions that are conjured up when we think of space and many of them are futuristic. UFOs are always considered beings with far advanced technology when compared to our own; as mentioned in lecture, earlier views of space were the ability to do more with technology than what we have. After all, we use the words "space-age technology" to define things that are way past our abilities to create. Now that I have drawn this connection, I'm going to quickly talk about future technology and art just because it's on my mind. The future and art have a very interesting connection in that, to a large degree, artists create what people perceive to be the future of technology. Concept technologies like concept cars represent awesome future technologies and now there is such thing as a "futurist" who visualizes and estimates what the future is going to be. In the end, it takes a dreamer, an artist, to make these things while scientists are caught up doing what's already been done a little bit differently. (END TANGENT)
In the 1950's, during the atomic age, people were very interested in going to space, colonizing planets and even the moon. In the children's book at right, you can see an artist's interpretation of going to the moon. I remember, in fact, as a child, how much Star Wars' futuristic spaceships that were shaped like jets influenced my playing. I used to make Lego versions of the cruisers and fight with others but the point is that it was the media version of the future that I took to be the actual future.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the speaker for this week, but I did have the pleasure and disappointment of going to the Tesla event. I felt that there was a very well defined artistic side of the event but barely any science side. Still, I enjoyed understanding how much Tesla influenced and was influenced by art. I feel like Tesla was not really linked at all to the lady who showed her work with the electromagnet but simply used the idea of Tesla's invention in her work which I don't feel is truly relevant; there was an undercurrent of her simply trying to promote her art rather than appreciate the means to her art. However, the woman who spoke of "Resonance" seemed to have a much closer relation to him and seemed much more in touch, even though she remarked at the beginning that there was more than just Tesla in her art show. Finally, best of all, I liked the man who created Tesla coils as his work seemed closest to Tesla's, not only by the mere fact that he made Tesla coils, but by the fact that he had a purpose to help people. In other words, in making his giant Tesla coils, his goal was to ultimately simulate lightning as found in nature so as to improve the safety of vehicles. He mentioned other entertainment based applications, but this was just for the sake of funding which ultimately is another important aspect of his work. It is very likely that one will find a person who makes Tesla coils but if you ask what their reason for it is, they will tell you it is for fun or to experiment around with. None of these things are really useful to humanity and so you wonder what possible use a Tesla coil could have. It is only until you meet someone like this speaker that you actually feel how important work in the development of high voltage electronics is.
Now I'd like to speak to the affect this class has had on me, because I'm sure it is valuable knowledge to whatever TA or professor reads this. Before, I had the understanding that science and art were completely separate realms. I would get very defensive when my "artsy" friend worked on engineering based projects because I felt that an artist could not possibly know science better than I. However, as this class progressed, I started understanding that it is the artists that create dreams and the scientists that can make them happen. This doesn't mean that scientists can't dream and that artists can't advance science, but it means that everyone has a little scientist and a little artist in them, causing a varying amount of creativity and productivity. I learned from this class that these things are mixed in all areas and should be delighted in rather than feared.

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

2007-06-10T16:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Juliet Lee - week 10 - space & the final frontier

2007-06-10T15:05:00.000-07:00

When we started on Monday and the heading of this weeks theme was space exploration the first thing I thought of was those art pieces that are like tigers or under water creatures out in space. And in a way the information we know about the universe is through how artists can conceptualize the ideas of scientists. As evidenced through the entire class, art is there to teach us when the technology hasn't caught up to our research and imagination. An example could be the Power of Ten video we watched, most of what they show us cannot be photographed by anything that we know, on the galaxy or atomic scale. It's pretty amazing how much we can learn through the visualization of concepts. That is one of the features that make us human too, our strong dependence on sight. This class has done a good job of integrating art and science even if it was quite overwhelming at times. There was a lot of information given to us in a small amount of time, and though I suppose it was nice to be given a choice as to which artist we wanted to look into further, but I felt like I lacked the sense to know how to look at their work and understand it without someone else explaining it to me. Artists have a way of explaining their art that makes me think that they are making everything up. That they really just felt like making something and worked backward to give their piece meaning. Therefore it was still the scientist who in giving their perspectives in art and science that I better understood the connection, at least as a legitimate collaboration and not as a purpose to solely create new/different art work. Although Wednesday's lecturer was a bit too heavy on the science and I found a lot of what he said to be going over my head Gekelman’s talk on plasma was really interesting. I was able to attend the symposium for Nikola Tesla and found it to be another interesting dichotomy between art and science and even to how they give presentations in front of a crowd of varied backgrounds. The first and last lecturers Milos Ercegovac and Greg Leyh, I understood what it was that they were talking about, and also their relation to Tesla. Of course when Ercegovac spoke he was very easy to understand because he just gave an overview of Tesla's varied and impressive life and he presented it in a funny presentation. The other scientist was from the Nevada Lightening Lab, and his presentation was also in order and made a direct connection to Tesla through his research on lightning and the Tesla coils. On the other hand, the artists who spoke I felt nearly put me backwards in my thinking that art should be given the respect that the sciences are given. It was sad to hear people leaving throughout the film "Monster Tree" by Paulette Phillips even though the breathing was really annoying and I also wanted to leave. Phillips related her art to Tesla because she used a magnet to hold up a tissue and filmed a girl with her hair blowing straight up into the air and never blinking giving us a magnetic look. That's what I was talking about how to me it sounds like artists just want to talk about themselves and what they created so they make a story that can let them talk longer. In this class I haven't heard a one of our artists say just enough to explain their art and their actions in a convincing manner.

Annie Wu- Week 10

2007-06-08T05:19:00.000-07:00

When I first learned that this week’s topic was going to be about space exploration, gravity, and macro & micro cosmos, I could not really understand how these things related to art and design. Of course, there is some kind of artistic quality, or aspect, about the innovations that are constantly being created to send into space, but the definite connection between art and space just did not really stand out to me right away.

After learning about it more, I realized that art and design really seem to affect all different aspects of life, even space exploration; it is going as far to even contribute new ideas to space exploration and the future possibilities regarding space habitats. Space artist Pierre Comte’s project “Biospace 1, 1991” deals with the idea of having inflatable space structures, developed for the prospects of human habitation in outer space. There would be a total of two launches into space. The first launch would send a cylindrical module into space, containing essential equipment such as the power supply, remote control, and more. The second launch would send another module into space, except this one would contain the inflatable structures. The two modules would meet in space and after connecting, they would move farther apart as the structures would begin to inflate. After everything is done inflating and automatically “setting up,” the entire structure would become operational and functional. Astronauts would then be able to deal with the insides of the structure however they wanted—they would be decorating the interior like as if it were a house on Earth. It is so interesting to see how art can inspire people to create structures like this, to motivate them to invent new ways of living.
http://www.spacearts.info/en/db/get_work.php?id=810

Another thing I realized about space art is that it has the capability to really force people to experience and perceive space in completely new senses. In Louise K. Wilson’s installation, “Terra Firma, 1996,” she stages the setting of a laboratory. She used documentation from an experiment concerning motion sickness, which she had observed how the human body reacted with the space around it while being moved around (for example, spinning around in a chair). Wilson’s installation is meant to involve the viewers, for they are supposed to interact with the setting by listening to the audio documentation of the motion sickness experiment, watch the visual recordings, and read the written documents. Wilson probably engaged in this experimental study because of J.G. Ballard’s idea of “the state of humans in weightlessness as ‘a forced return to infantile dependency.’” The viewers in the installation have to analyze Wilson’s role in the experiment; not only that, but they also get to see space presented in a new way. By participating in the installation, the viewers get to see how Wilson physically interacts with the zero gravity environment surrounding her and the effects of her actions. They are able to see space in a way they are not accustomed to, and consequently, they also get to witness a different experience of the human body.
http://www.spacearts.info/en/db/get_work.php?id=619

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

2007-06-08T02:39:00.000-07:00

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.

nano, james zavala week 9

2007-06-05T15:18:00.001-07:00

Nanotechonology is interesting. I do agree that people have been going overboard with things regarding nanotechnology. Other people have abused nanotechnology which is horrible because then it undermines the great possibilities of nanotechnology. After a while nanotechnology will only be seen as a joke in the sense that if everything bares the name then it will no longer be anything special. The fact that creams abuse the name without knowing what it really means actually erkcs me in the sense that people are devoting a lot of their time and attention to nanotechnology for the better of things. I don’t deny that there are some people are utilizing nanotechnology for no purpose but I have hope that there are others out there that will use it to benofit mankind. There are already many advancements that are due to nanotechnology like the nano camera that are used in patients to view there insides and determine what is wrong with a person. There are also the nano chips that fit on the tip of a persons finger tips which is lightweight. Although it may seem that the idea of having nano chips may seem too extensive, if one thinks about it it can be used for many great things. In my mind I think about putting it into a pill which has a computer inside of it that will benefit a sick person one way or other.
I didn’t really understand the whole buckminster fuller thing. I love his work being that he focuses on nature and the fact that it is more stable than things that are manmade. Then I realize the fact that nanotechonlogy is manmade then I realize the fact that they may be looking at buckmionster fuller in the sense that they want to make it successful like buckminster fuller did with his attention to nature. They might then focus on nature when they try to develop any new ideas in nanotechnology to make it prosperous. Nanotechnology can be used for many reasons which will hopefully be applied to great reasons and others wont abbuse it for rediculous reasons. Then again we don’t live in a beautiful world.

Kiesha Nazarenus, Week 10!!, last week :(

2007-06-04T21:37:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to believe that this class is almost over. We’ve covered so much material but as I sat down to write my final essay I began to realize the extent to which everything connects and supports each another. Especially as we discuss this week’s topic, Space Exploration, all the previous topics seem to connect and tie in perfectly.

Why it is that man kind is so interested in the concept of extraterrestrial life? Why is it that we feel it necessary to know what is not known…what drives this desire? Will our interest in space exploration lead to technological advances that will guide our society to a new way of living?
Tens of thousands of UFO reports have been made worldwide. Reports of unusual aerial phenomena date back to ancient times, but reports of UFO sightings started becoming more common after the first widely publicized U.S. sighting in 1947. Now personally I can’t possible look at some of the things people testify to and truly believe it… and frankly because of gut instinct I think UFO’s are a bunch of nonsense, but at the same time there is some convincing evidence out there. At this site I found, http://http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html#anchor361824, astronauts were cited as having testified to witnessing extraterrestrial life and actually believe in what they see. Whether this is true or valid or whether these astronauts are actually sane and credible, I don’t know, and I don’t know if I can fully buy into it BUT it does make you think. These men are up in space where most of society never goes and they testify to seeing UFO’s. In a taped interview by J. L. Ferrando, Major Cooper said: "For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists in astronautics. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us.” As I was scrolling down the list of astronauts I froze when I got to Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong is quoted for saying that “Aliens have a base on the Moon and told us in no uncertain terms to get off and stay off the Moon” and that unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA’s broadcasting outlets picked up an exchange where Neil on the moon said “I’m telling you there are other spacecrafts out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They’re on the Moon watching us!” Is this all just a big conspiracy…or are we just hesitant to believe? I mean who are we to say that in some other galaxy there isn’t another life form with similar intelligence to us.
I really like our guest lecturer this week even though the discussion was scientifically based without much discussion of art. It always amazes me when I see the research and projects that are being done at UCLA and Walter Gekelman’s work tops my list. At the end of lecture he briefly touched on a couple practical uses for plasma including some for medical purposes. Class was ending so he didn’t really get to expand on it, but he mentioned how people are trying to engineer new forms of biological tissue by growing it in plasma and plasma torches that can seal tissue instantly and plasma scalpels that will seal while cutting to prevent bleeding during surgery. Medical practice has the potential to change drastically as we form new ways for expanding a person’s life span. But at what point will prolonged life have a serious effect on over-population? When will our fascination for being able to cure everything kick us in the butt?

week 9- Nanotechonogy

2007-06-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry about doing this post so late! this is the first time this has happened- really busy weekend... i hope you still accept it :)....

As we delve further into the exploration of creativity I understand that people love to challenge the mind. Strange philosophical theories, outlandish art techniques, science that alters natural biology are all ways to question perception, life and who we are. Last week we talked about nanotechnology. I find it so bizzare how scientist continue to get smaller and smaller in their interest. I wonder how far they will go.
When Victoria showed me the tiny robot bugs that destroyed human disease it made me alittle nervous about where the future of medicine will go. If those small machines were in our bodies, I feel like they would break down and the many particles would be trapped in our systems.
Nanotechnology makes me think about the infamous Buckminsterfullerine. The buckminsterfullerine is the simplest of the carbon structures. Buckmister Fuller made his geodesic dome because it was the MOST effectient way to have a structure in nature. So, when we talked about Harry Kroto and Richard Smalley naming their discovered molecule the "buckminster fullerine," ( after Buckminster Fuller's Geodesic dome shape) it made me curious if Buckminster fuller knew about this molecule before the scientists dicovered it.

> Nanotechnology: small science, big deal > Under your skin > What is nano-sized healthcare? >
Early days The arrival of nanomachines that could help repair our bodies is a long way off. Before we can design these devices, we need to understand how things work on this tiny scale. Most of this research is still at a very early stage.Scientists at Oxford University are studying how the tails - or 'flagella' - of some bacteria work. This type of tiny motor could be used in future as a propeller for delivering drugs around the body.

Here is a nanotechonology exhibit I found on the web!

Naturally nano
Page 3 of 7
Waiting time

back to:Under your skin

Scientists are studying how the tails of some bacteria work so they can design tiny propellers to deliver drugs around the body.Video: Rowland Institute, HarvardBroadband Version
Requires Windows Media Player v6.4 or greater. Nanotechnology: small science, big deal > Under your skin > What is nano-sized healthcare? > ">more informationhttp:// Home > Nanotechnology: small science, big deal > Under your skin > What is nano-sized healthcare? >

Week 9, section 4

2007-06-04T01:13:00.000-07:00

Well, I forgot to do this post until late and so I hope that this will only have points docked rather than not counted at all...
Anyway, Nikola Tesla is one of my heroes and so I was very sorry to find that the speaker, Professor James Gimzewski only talked about him for a little while at the end. Still, I found Professor Gimzewski's ideas to be amazingly clear and insightful. We've reached a point in life when philosophers are saying that we have reached a point where we are no longer progressing but are simply reliving past achievements. I think the prime reason for this is humanity's lack of ability to come up with REALLY new technology and ideas. In Jean Baudrillard's Transparency of Evil, the author states that "this is the state of simulation, a state in which we are obliged to replay all scenarios precisely because they have all taken place already, whether actually or potentially." (102). To an extent, this is very true. We all ascribe to the same strings of logic leading to the exact same resulting ideas and choices. It is for this reason, above all others that I think that the merging of art and science is essential for our future. I like how Gimzewski called nano-computing "uninteresting" while most scientists all over the world believe that quantum computing is our very future although I would even go so far to say that nanotechnology to cure all our ailments is even uninteresting. The idea of nanotechnology applied to medicine has been discussed for some time and I believe that there is a school that will continue thinking of novel medicinal applications of nanotechnology but this idea is as overused as nanocomputers. I think as long as we have a group of people working on these ideas, if we want progress, we will need to continue thinking of new ideas. This is why I loved Nikola Tesla so much; while others were concerned with "the usual method," Tesla would always choose the road less traveled or the idea less explored. Off the top of my head, from prior research, some examples are the idea of flight, the deahtray, and wireless energy transmission. As of late, scientists are finding problems with technology as many of the technologies we've made thus far involve moving parts which wear down eventually due to friction, drag, and many other external forces. While many people tried to mimic the bird as it flapped or created propeller operated airplanes, Tesla was already experimenting with an idea that we have recently discovered--ion wind. Ion wind works on the idea of taking air particles, ionizing them in a filter, and accelerating them using electromagnets to simulate a strong gust of wind. NASA recently used this property to create the ion drive engine in the Deep-Space 1, however, Tesla already envisioned this concept more than a half century before it was actually put into use.
Tesla's death ray was another idea that was outside of everyone's grasp even now. When creating it, he envisioned it to be an item that would bring peace and stability. The death ray was an machine that worked similar to a rail gun which accelerates particles at very high speeds using magnetic fields. The idea was that it could be used for defense where people would create fields that bombs could not penetrate because the death ray would shoot them down, but instead, current defense specialists have abused the idea, turning it into a weapon. To further the claim that Tesla intended the invention to bring peace, he distributed part of the plans to every country so that they had to work together in order to produce working models. I don't believe anyone would think to create something with such a noble purpose besides Tesla.
Finally is Tesla's ideas about energy. I thought this was one of the most amazing inventions that he ever tried to achieve. Tesla saw the world in its state where there were countries where people were starving without clean water or electricity and understood that people needed these things and bad and so his goal was ultimately to bring electricity to every corner of the globe for free. Tesla was the first person to ever view technology as a right to every human being. Thus, he developed several ways of generating electricity that were unexplored like using thermocouples to get power from heat or from gathering energy from the ionosphere or from using turbines on Niagara Falls. This way, he could get energy for free. Then, he could transmit energy over long distances using his tesla coils as energy transmitters and receivers which he could place all over the globe. No one else thought to utilize wireless energy or would sacrifice so much to build something that would get so little profit however Tesla was willing to give his thoughts and inventions to society without expecting so much as a pretty penny.
It is this unhindered thought process, where one takes one idea and exhausts its applications entirely in novel ways just for the sake of benefiting society, that all people must learn to use. Otherwise we will make no progress. This is why art is necessary to technology; without the artist's creativity and daring, there would be no interesting new technology--we'd all be stuck in the Stone Age.
I'm expecting a lot of good things to come from the Tesla conference on Friday. I hope it meets my expectations. I think he's the definitive third culture as every work he ever did was a piece of art that displays itself in the gallery that is the world in all of our technologies today.

Juliet Lee - Week 9 - Nanotech

2007-06-04T00:06:00.000-07:00

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

Alexander Yeh, Week 9, Nanobots Already Exist

2007-06-03T23:53:00.001-07:00

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.

Week 9 - Christopher Flannery - Nano

2007-06-03T23:30:00.000-07:00

The first point I took from the article by Jim Gimzewski and Victoria Vesna about nanomemes was the limit of the general public’s perception of concepts such as the nanometer. This reminded me off my Astronomy 3 class, the Nature of the Universe, when the professor tried to communicate the enormous size of existence through analogies. It also reminded me of the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy when a main character is placed in a machine that forces an individual to realize their size and importance in relation to the entire universe; his head explodes. I think it will be quite a while until the majority of people grasp concepts like this: even as a privileged and educated man, I struggle to myself. This dilemma relates back to last week’s topic about human consciousness and the limits of our senses. If humans don’t understand or relate to scales such as nanometers or galaxies, can it effectively be used in art? I do think the feeling one gets when thinking about the concepts is a desirable goal of art. When I googled “nano art”, the third link that came up was to NANO, Professor Vesna’s project with Jim Gimzewski. I think that this work is successful in making the audience consider that effects that nanotechnology will have on the world: the cameras at the entrance representing the threat to privacy, stimulation through tactile, visual, and audio environments, and interactive biological installations.
The discovery of the Buckminsterfullerene reassures me that nature is the best artist of all and that all areas of design can profit from the study of natural bodies. Buckminster Fuller predicted the shapes of many natural structures by drawing diverse formations and scientific theories. Some people credit him as the father of nano-art because of his foresight. After our study of tensegrity and the amazing properties of the domes, it doesn’t surprise me that this molecule is incredibly stable. Some people credit him as the father of nano-art because of his foresight.
Considering the current state of war and terrorism, nanotechnology could help in defense or be a dangerous weapon. When I read about nano-robots being used as anti-bodies, I thought of the possibility of someone creating a swarm of nano-robots to kill or control masses. When I searched for material on this topic, I found about “Grey Goo” which is a science-fiction scenario in which nano-robots reproduce and spread to consume our entire ecosystem. There are many similar theories of the apocalypse, many of which remind me of “The Matrix.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
Science is making a revolutionary and incredibly fact impact over the course of a lifetime and art should be keeping up. It must reflect and comment on our full spectrum of consciousness, but I am not sure how this is possible because science is advancing so quickly and our understanding is always behind.

Anna Marks Week 9 Nanotechnology

2007-06-03T23:14:00.001-07:00

This week’s lecture was very interesting despite the time constraint. I know very little about nanotechnology and it was fascinating to learn about the connection between the art and science of nanotechnology. Lectures like this make me happy I took this course because I probably never would have been exposed to this information otherwise. Because this week’s topic was cut short into one lecture, I decided to research nanotechnology on my own. I discovered that nanotechnology is “anything smaller than microtechnology.” Another alternate term that was recently adopted was zettatechnology. Many things are produced with the use of nanotechnology and two of the main things are small machines and computers, and regular objects that are produced with the use of nanoscaled systems and materials, making it exact and very specific. This is very useful in the world because it allows for machines and other products to be even more carefully created and make things more precise. An interesting product that has been used and created thanks to nanotechnology is the nanocomposite, which is used in some cars like the GM safari and the Astro Vans. They “generate improvements in strength and reductions in weight” and allow the car to reduce its fuel use and increase the longevity. It lowers the weight of the materials used and makes them more durable.
Here’s a website that provides more information about nanotechnology:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/current-uses.htm
I really enjoyed the guest lecturer this week. Professor James Gimzewski was nothing like I expected and he seemed very pessimistic about the world and the future. After stating that 95% of all research and science is “crap” I was in shock because I previously believed that all research produces some useful information, and I thought it was very odd that he would argue this point. However, I enjoyed how he had collaborated with Professor Vesna on some of her projects and I think that the research and products that he does do have a great impact on science. I was especially fascinated with the butterfly project he was working on, and I completely enjoyed the story and anecdotes that went along with it.

Nanotechnology, Week 9

2007-06-03T23:14:00.000-07:00

Nano Technology

Nano technology is a microscience. Robots so small they can fit into our blood stream? A discussion topic came up this week that seems like it would open up a whole new world for artists. In a sense, it is like 3-Dimensional drawing because it would be almost effortless to create an image. It would definitely be a very effective way for someone to map an idea rather quickly that they wanted to show someone. I think it could potentially lead to the uprising of new artists that could create models with less "effort."

I also found a new respect for Buckminster Fuller because I realized fully how much he has contributed to both art and science. The guest lecture from last week discusss certed the importance of art in making new scientific discoveries. That has certainly shown up in this example. Furthermore, these new developments also connect to nanotechnology. In discussion, we spoke about the idea of creating very small motors that run on different magnetic fields. These motors will have many scientific implications, some discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomotor. Specifically, the idea to move small objects around might be critical for later medical developments.

This is the obvious site to go to when questioning the ideas around nanotechnology: http://www.nanotech-now.com/. Apparently, these will be good developments for OLEDs and a lot of science systems.

I was watching Modern Marvels casually one day while eating pizza at a local joint. On the TV, all of the sudden appeared these televisions taken out of tubes and unrolled like posters, placed on a table, then turned on and they worked perfectly. Details can be seen here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/07/53987. Also, this thought led me to an idea I heard about that the military is developing. Apparently, the military is developing a helmet that would allow a soldier to see in 360 degress, all angles, giving a fairly significant advantage in the battlefield. I researched this but was not able to find any information on it, so it could be well concealed or might be a prototype idea. Either way, this does not sound like a completely impossible idea. Already, I remember this from a previous discussion as well, researchers have begun to develop different ways to help the blind see without surgery. Cameras can pick up certain color signatures, and based on how light or dark they are they would differ between two tones. It would be primitive, but it would most certainly help with motion.

In the middle of this diary, http://www.nanotech.org/?path=News/s/a/sDiary, the article discusses the development of nanotubes (picture).

These tubes could isolate the molecules that harbor very important chemical reactions. It could also lead to many more quantum discoveries in this realm. For example, certain chemical reactions could be mapped perfectly and isolated for certain processes that could reduce fuel costs, create new fuel ideas, etc.

It is clear that science holds the key to the future. But art does as well, because it was art that helped lead to the discovery of Bucky Balls and new molecule types that harbor a great capacity for dissection.

Week 9 - Daniel Baker - Feeling is Believing

2007-06-03T23:04:00.001-07:00

In James Gimzewski’s lecture on Wednesday, he mentioned as he described the Scanning Tunneling Microscope that “Feeling is believing.” This statement seems to be imperative to a field like nanotechnology, where the traditional observational sense of sight has become useless. As mentioned in “The Nanomeme Syndrome” article, the idea that ‘seeing is believing’ has become obsolete; a strange new sensation for a culture that relies so heavily on sight within daily interactions. Just like Gimzewski stated, we experience the world (and science) through sensors: interactions with machines and people, and these sensors are changing in the realm of nanotechnology. Modern day is full of visual stimuli, and while the other senses are of course important, it seems as if the sense of sight is most vital. Advertisements, street signs, clothing: everything is geared to first appeal to our sense of sight. Art as well is dominated by the presence of sight, for in order to observe a typical piece of art, one usually only uses their eyes. (“Look but don’t touch!” rings a bell) But in a world where our eyes just do not cut it, this dominant sense is transferred from vision to touch, augmenting the standard way we perceive the world.

The Scanning Tunneling Microscope’s use of a small needle to touch the atoms in order to sense them essentially uses touch in order for us to “see”. It is linked to the neurological occurrence of synesthesia, a condition where people’s senses begin to blend together. Someone diagnosed with synesthesia could report that they can taste music, or that colors have a certain texture to them, fusing the senses together in a similar way the one may “see” what the Scanning Tunneling Microscope “feels.” The condition offers a unique way of perceiving the world. Interestingly, people who have synesthesia understand the occurrence to be completely natural, and do not see anything strange about it, something that is quite the opposite for people who do not observe the world in such ways. Now scientists are being forced into understanding the world through these terms, using touch as a dominant sense, yet they result to purely visual forms in order to explain their findings.

A test to see if a person has synesthesia (the one on the right is an example of what an affected patient might see)

Another area that Gimzewski presented that also shows links to synesthesia is the appearance of music based theories in these new fields. Quantum mechanics and string theory both employ the fundamentals of sonic vibrations to explain their occurrences, creating a bridge between sound and vision. In order to “see” the truth and draw a mental picture, the sights of sound (waves) are used as explanation. One must draw from many senses in order to fully comprehend the theories. The traditional visual form is starting to become inadequate to comprehend the intricacies of the universe. Visual art no longer is an accurate portrayal of the world like it used to be, for we are getting to the point where science is making it clear that there is much more required to understand our lives and what we are made of than simple visualizations. The qualities of these new fields seem to be leading society into a different mode of perceiving the world than what they are used to; it becomes more apparent that a larger dependence on other senses other than vision is required to understand and accept the fundamentals that make up life.

Boris Lipkin - Week 9 - Nanotechnology

2007-06-03T23:01:00.001-07:00

Nanotechnology seems to be the technology of the future. All of the fantastic things that we see in movies or read about in books is what nanotechnology hopes to achieve. The world right now is rigid, stiff, and inflexible. Nanotechnology offers the key to make it malleable and easier to control and change things. The possibilities for nanotechnology offer everything from a cure to cancer to the elimination of carbon emissions.
I think one of the most interesting projects in the works for nanotechnology are nanoshells. Nanoshells are tiny hollow spheres that are only a few nanometers in size. They can be used to physically destroy cancer. The problem with cancer is that while most cells have a timing mechanism as to when they are supposed to die, cancerous cells don’t have that so they spread out destroying the body. How nanoshells work is they are covered with antibodies and inserted (probably injected) into the body. They would then attach themselves to the cancerous cells. After they are attached, a laser is pointed at the skin of the person and while it does not do any harm to the skin it heats up the nanoshells. As the nanoshells heat up they literally end up cooking the cancer cells to death. This process is pretty painless and would be able to destroy cancerous cells intravenously without causing harm to the person like chemotherapy does.
Nanotechnology has the potential to change the world and just as the internet and telecommunications did in the 1990s. The impact that nanotech could have on society is immeasurable, the problem is that I don’t know how long it will be before that impact can be felt. While it seems to be right around the corner, the technology might be anywhere from years to decades (I hope not centuries) away. I’m sure that the struggles that we face now regarding nanotechnology will be looked at by people in the 22nd century as we now look at the early computers that took up rooms and did less than today’s graphing calculator. It’s amazing how far technology has advanced since even I have been alive, which is less than twenty years. I remember listening to records and not having a computer at home when I was growing up. Now I listen to an iPod and don’t know anyone at UCLA who does not have a laptop, let alone a computer. It’s amazing how far we’ve come in such a short period of time and it’s just as exciting to see where we will be twenty years from now, with lots of nanotechnology I hope.