This was the third event I attended, and I'm happy I went to the Discovery Cube and LACMA before it. The Discovery Cube was simple excitement, LACMA was more mature in its integration of art and science, and Kathy High's exhibit was all this plus a profound message. Going into this exhibition, I didn't really know anything about Kathy High except what we covered in class, and I had no idea what Chrome's disease was. Walking in and immediately seeing a representation of a method to preserve feces, I was a little hesitant about how much I would enjoy the exhibition.
Fecal matter preserved in honey
But, after spending some time learning about Crohn's disease, fecal transplants, the art in the room, and Kathy's mission, I thought it was a really cool and well presented exhibit.
Photo with one of her photos. Clearer one below
There were seemingly contradictory pieces, beautiful art and feces, the vibrancy and life of Kathy's pictures and the seriousness and sorrow of having an affliction such as Crohn's disease. But everything tied together so well. Kathy's bravery in asking David Bowie for his feces for a fecal transplant is the same bravery that allows her to model in recreations of his album covers. The positivity represented in those photographs related to the information present about Crohn's disease- about moving forward and making positive discoveries and developments, not lamenting her situation or having a pity party.
Image as part of a series to help raise awareness for Crohn's disease
We learned about a lot of art that creates discussion or explores controversial subjects (Alba and Orlan's work are examples) and it was really cool to see such an exhibit. I also thought it was a great way to promote awareness about Crohn's disease. The exhibition is closed, but I would strongly encourage people to check out some photos of her art and read a bit about her experience with Crohn's.
Sources:
High, Kathy. "Waste Matters: You Are My Future | UCLA Art | Sci Center Lab." UCLA Art Sci. UCLA Art Sci. Web. 7 June 2015.
I visited LACMA shortly after visiting the Discovery Cube, and I felt like I saw a kind of grown-up version of it, but more artsy. Two exhibitions I thought were cool were Breathing Light by James Turrell and Metropolis II by Chris Burden. To experience Breathing Light, you enter a room of sorts with white curved walls, ceiling, and floor. Different shades of light are filtered into the room, and it disrupts your depth perception, which was really funky.
This isn't actually the one from LACMA, but an almost identical exhibition by Turrell. I chose it because I think it shows a bit on how it affects depth perception. The article that goes with it is really interesting and definitely worth a read if you're interested in this exhibit.
Metropolis II is a huge kinematic racetrack, with dozens of toy race cars continually zooming to the end of the track and being lifted back to the beginning.
Video about Metropolis II
Me and some of my sorority sisters at Metropolis II
To me, these exhibits represented situations where art and science are inseparable. Breathing Light related to visual presentation and perspective, more specific how technology allows us to create spectacular visual effects in film. One example is in filming The Lord of the Rings trilogy, where they used multiple cameras and scaling sets to make the proportions of the actors correct. This application of technology to enhance visual presentation is similar to the vanishing point and golden ratio we learned about week 2. Metropolis II made me think of architecture, where the primary focus is of course creating a safe building, but almost as important is the building's aesthetic. Architecture is an interesting type of art in that it is created to serve a practical purpose, but can hold artistic value equivalent to that of a painting, sculpture, symphony, more 'traditional' forms of art. Other similar examples are cars, furniture, computer hardware. LACMA definitely wasn't what I was expecting, and was really engaging and informative. There are many places where art and science converge, and I think this class really showed me how art doesn't have to fall solely in the realm of humanities, but can be just as scientific as engineering or medicine.
Sources:
Burden, Chris. "Metropolis II at LACMA." YouTube. Debitification, 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 June 2015.
Gayford, Martin. "Enlightened Spaces." MIT Technology Review. MIT Technology Review, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 7 June 2015.
The first event I went to was Bubblefest at the Discovery Cube OC. I wasn't too wow-ed bu the Bubblefest itself, the bubbles were kind of fun(bubbles are always fun), but overall it seemed just overwhelmingly flashy and showy with underwhelming content. Although, I could just be a little disappointed because I didn't know Bubblefest was a show (reminded me of fireworks), not an interactive room full of bubbles and stuff to make bubbles and play with bubbles. I found wandering around the Cube to be more entertaining.
Me and my friends arrived early, so we had a bit of time to wander around and look at the exhibits.
Being one of the oldest people there not accompanying a young child, it was interesting to look at what exhibits my friends and I were attracted to versus what attracted the younger children, the target audience of the Cube. Nick, Paige, and I were drawn to all the 'doing' exhibits- where you had the ability to manipulate a force and observe the result. These would be contrasted with the more visual exhibits- such as a 'grocery store' teaching about eco-friendly shopping, where most of the information is presented in video clips. This was a trend I noticed with younger children too, with barely anyone near the oceanic area where most of the information was on murals or signs, but the Earthquake simulator, seismograph, wind tunnel, and cloud ring almost always crowded.
Create standing waves- this was kind of funny to see since there's a physics 4AL lab analyzing these, which I did spring 2014.
Seismograph- this was fun, we had competitions with kids to see who could make the biggest spike by jumping
Seeing the amazement and joy of the children in such a simple context as creating different sized standing waves with a spinning string made me think of another connection between art and science- the pleasure of finding things out, of learning and accomplishment. There are many different types of joy- vegging out with Netflix, helping someone, receiving a present- but, at least for me, the joy I get from finishing a CS project feels almost the same as mastering a piano piece or playing a great game of tennis. This course has shown me how art and science influence each other, but I still thought of them as completely separate entities, not really comparable. But the processes, making scientific discoveries or completing an art exhibition or collection, these are similar, and give us another means of bridging the gap between art and science. By sharing what amazes and excites us about our own favorite subjects, maybe we can spread our knowledge, creating a more knowledgeable and cohesive society. The Discovery Cube is targeted towards younger children, but it was very fun to embrace my inner child, and run around playing with all the exhibitions. I would definitely recommend it, not so much as a learning experience, but just a way to enjoy science and have fun.
Sources:
"Spinning Wire and Strobe at California Discovery Science Center Cube." YouTube. Iddyodyssey's Channel, 7 Sept. 2014. Web. 7 June 2015.
"Seismograph: Measure Your Own Tremors!" Discovery Cube OC RSS2. Discovery Cube OC RSS2. Web. 7 June 2015.
I'd like to start off with this Ted Talk, in which retired colonel Chris Hadfield recounts his experience with space travel.
He discusses how to deal with the pressure of space travel, an extremely dangerous setting. One quote stood out to m
e, “… because you realize that by the end of the day, you´re either floating effortlessly, gloriously in space or you´ll be dead.”
One such case was the Challenger mission, which reminded of part of a book I read a few years ago on Richard Feynman's life. The chapter was an excerpt from a technical documents on the Challenger mission- "Appendix F - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle" by Richard Feynman. <http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt>
In it, he describes faults in NASA's method of assessing risk and probability of failure. As he describes, some of this error was due to conflicts between the management and the scientists. He ends with a quote that I think is very relevant to scientific advancements in general, regardless of field. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." (Feynman, Conclusion) This goes back even to Copernicus and his conflict with the ideologies of the Church, which was basically the government. Looking at how government, religion, and science has clashed in the past is especially interesting now, with space technologies transitioning from the government sector to the private sector.
This gives the responsibility of developments to private companies, with their own livelihood at risk. So then, what incentives do they have to research space exploration? This Ted Talk covers three main reasons: curiosity, fear, and wealth.
Fear is definitely a large motivator, a classic example is the space race caused by the launching of Sputnik. I know we talked about it in lecture, but I still thought this TedTalk was interesting.
Art can bolster the desire to improve because of fear through media and propaganda, though more causing fear than inspiring. Curiosity is the most ideological of the three- dreaming as a child about space and growing up to take an active role in space exploration. Art can help definitely promote curiosity, and has been doing so for generations. From movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, to tv shows like Dr. Who and Futurama, to rides at Disneyland and books such as Dune and Ender's Game, many of these have stirred curiosity in people about what's out there, what is the limit and can we reach it? This Ted Talk shows another type of art that can be inspiring, one more fused with science.
Sources:
Hadfield, Chris. "Chris Hadfield: What I Learned from Going Blind in Space." YouTube. TED, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 31 May 2015.
Shannon, Tom. "Tom Shannon's Gravity-defying Sculpture." YouTube. TED, 6 May 2009. Web. 31 May 2015.
Hoffman, David. "David Hoffman: Catch Sputnik Mania!" YouTube. TED, 4 Apr. 2008. Web. 31 May 2015.
Diamandis, Peter. "Peter Diamandis: Taking the next Giant Leap in Space." YouTube. TED, 4 Sept. 2008. Web. 31 May 2015.
Feynman, Richard. "Appendix F - Personal Observations on the Reliability of the Shuttle." Kennedy Space Center, NASA. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, 29 June 2001. Web. 31 May 2015. .
Nanotechnology is something I wasn't familiar with at all, and it was a little bit of a surprise to me how common it was in our lives-- something as simple as the silver nanoparticals on my socks. I guess I'd assumed that I would just know about important developments in technology, such as GMOs. The potential for nanotechnology seems almost limitless, from applications in cosmetics to medicine.
This TedTalk gives a quick demo related to the hydrophobic properties of the lotus leaf discussed in part 3 of the lecture series.
The Project of Emerging Nanotechnologies was very informative with developements in applying nanotechnology to medicine.
The more familiar we are with a subject, the more we understand it. I think nanoart is extreemly important to extend interest and understanding of nanotechnology to a broader range of people, not just scientists, doctors, manufacturers. It reminded me of our week looking at math and art, how a focus on developing better artistic techniques helped also develop mathematical techniques. Concepts involving depth, perception, and the relation between 2d and 3d that are general knowledge now weren't necessarily so back in Leonardo da Vinci's time. Art had the potential to benifit nanotechnology in the same way. An example of this is an interactive exhibition on nanotechnology put on by UCLA and LACMA in 2003(described in the article linked below).
"'I don't expect people to understand quantum physics,' Gimzewski said. 'But I expect them to notice what happens when they go through the exhibit. I'd like them to ask, 'What does this mean?"' "
Art has the same appeal. Looking at these photos below, someone who hasn't taken many science classes might not recognize them as magnetic fields, but their interest could still be sparked.
Wanting to find out what those pictures are, how they were taken, these questions would lead to a gaining of knowledge of magnetic fields. Using art, we can create and engaging and enticing open door into the world of nanotechnology. Like genetic modification, the more we know nanotechnology, the better equipped we are to make decisions about when and where it should be present in our lives.
Sources:
Shaw, Mark. "Mark Shaw: One Very Dry Demo." YouTube. TED, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 May 2015.
Linke, Heiner. "What Nanoscience Can Do to Change Our Future for the Better: Heiner Linke." YouTube. TEDx Talks, 23 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 May 2015.
Ed Simpson, Yasuhiko Hayashi, Takeshi Kasama and Rafal Dunin-Borkowski.Magnetic Nanotubes. Nd. Nanotechnology Now. Web. 24 May 2015.
Takeshi Kasama, Rafal Dunin-Borkowski, Krzysztof Koziol, Alan Windle. Magnetic field of an iron crystal inside a carbon nanotube. Nd. Nanotechnology Now. Web. 24 May 2015.
Lovgren, Stefan. "Can Art Make Nanotechnology Easier to Understand?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 23 Dec. 2003. Web. 24 May 2015.
"Nanotechnology Project." PEN News. Web. 24 May 2015.
When considering genetic manipulation, I always think of the Jurassic Park movies- partly because they're just really good movies and I like them a lot, but also because they have some great quotes relevant to these discussions.
The artists presented in lecture seem to take a slightly different position- focusing more on how we should move forward in the biotech industry rather than if we should be pursuing development at all.
By actively participating in genetic manipulation or other biotechnological art forms, artists such as Eduardo Kac, and Orlan try to see science from other perspectives- ultimately its implications on how we value life. Some of these points are covered below.
How we value non human life
One quite from Eduardo Kac's GPF Bunny with respect to his work really stood out to me- "This must be done with great care, with acknowledgment of the complex issues thus raised and, above all, with a commitment to respect, nurture, and love the life thus created." Many domestic animals are looked at as objects- whether lab rats or ill-treated pets. The discussion of genetic manipulations is part of how we value non-human life, and seeing animals as individuals that we can learn a lot from. This Ted Talk touches on some things that are related to understanding our relationship with animals.
How we value human qualities and diversity
Orlan's art brings up questions of how we value human life, looking at aesthetic beauty. In an interview, she says, "Beauty is the product of the dominant ideology.... This is very relevant also in all the beauty standarts out of occident that I am interested in and that I question in my work." Physical aesthetics has always been a controversial part of humanity, both idolizing it and trying to make it insignificant. This Ted Talk gives some insight into evolutionary aspects of aesthetics.
The future of genetics with respect to attributes such as intelligence, beauty, and physical capabilities has a huge question mark. If we can control the human genome, should we? Who would these procedures be available to? How will it affect our society around the world, and how we value a human life? With so much diversity in our world, we try to cultivate respect and value for everyone, but how does the game change when we can control the genetic lottery?
Sources:
TED. "Dennis Dutton: A Darwinian theory of beauty." Online video clip. YouTube. Nov 16. 2010. Web. May 10 2015.
TED. "Laurel Braitman: Depressed dogs, cats with OCD - what animal madness means for us humans." Online video clop. YouTube. Aug 21. 2014. Web. May 10 2015.
Orlan. "ORLAN Talks Plastic Surgery, Beauty Standards And Giving Her Fat To Madonna." Huffington Post. Jan 29. 2013. Web. May 10 2015.
Kac, Eduardo. "GFP Bunny." KAC. 2000. Web. May 10 2015.
"Jurassic Park". Steven Spielberg. Perf. Jeff Goldblum. Universial Pictures, 1993. DVD.
Photo from: Panda Whale, Adam Rifkin <http://pandawhale.com/post/59968/your-scientists-were-so-preoccupied-with-whether-they-could-that-they-didnt-stop-to-think-if-they-should-dr-ian-malcolm-jurassic-park>
This week I noticed some of the different ways science is incorporated in art- technical ways, such as the develop net of linear perspective; as the subject of a piece of art; and used through art to with relation to humanity.
It was interesting to learn about the development of mathematical equations and principles that could accurately depict appropriate size and scaling of objects within a painting, illustrated by the transition from works such as Duccio to those like Brunelleschi's.
These both contrast with Escher's works, such as Relativity.
In the previous two artists, mathematics influenced the portrayal of other objects; mathematics itself wasn't a subject in the paintings. Escher's works directly incorporate it- what sparks our interest is the mathematical or physical impossibilities present in the scene, not necessarily what is going on. Ie, people walking on staircases in a versus a scene with three distinct points of gravity. Escher's works sometimes resemble optical illusions, possibly because he was influenced by the Penrose stairs.
Theo Jansons kinetic creations called 'Strandbeests', featured in his Ted talk from the resources tab, are his idea of creating another life form. The precision required to build these creatures is incredible, and hints to a possible future where this type of kinematics combined with technology could be a form of artificial intelligence.
There are many dystopian novels that use science and technology to comment on society, often creating a syfy or futuristic setting such as 'brave new world'. 'flatlands' takes it a step further, creating a world not even human, but composed of linear and geometric shapes. Uses this setting steeped in mathematics in part to comment on caste systems and how our society handles information and progress.
http://www.integralworld.net/slaughter1.html
One thing that stood out to me in the suggested shows and movies was the emphasis of empathy in the tv show NUMB3RS. It contrasted the main character, a brilliant mathematician, with other typical characters who show either disregard to human life, or a misguided view of humanity, such as a serial killer or a scientist who justifies the murder of a few to aid the greater good. Often science and technology is presented in a negative way (think back to brave new world or the mad scientist) and it was interesting to see a 'good guy' mathematician.
Citations
Escher, M. C. Relativity. 1953. Cornelius Van S. Roosevelt Collection, Netherlands. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
Harris, Beth, and Steven Zucker. "Linear Perspective: Brunelleschi's Experiment." Khan Academy. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. <https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/renaissance-reformation/early-renaissance1/beginners-renaissance-florence/v/linear-perspective-brunelleschi-s-experiement>.
"Paradox Illusions." The Eye's Mind. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. <http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/paradox.html>.
Slaughter, Richard. "Transcending Flatland, Essay by Richard Slaughter." Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. <http://www.integralworld.net/slaughter1.html>.
"Theo Jansen: My Creations, a New Form of Life." YouTube. 6 Sept. 2007. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo>.
