Event 5: Space Shuttle Endeavour

On December 7th, I went to visit Space Shuttle Endeavour exhbit at the California Science Center. Since I wasn't around to watch it make its grand tour through LA the first time, I was pretty excited to see it in person. Knowing very little about the shuttle other than the hype from the earlier part of this year, I was excited to see what it is all about.

All around the room, were interactive exhibits about the shuttle. In addition, in the galleries before the exhibit, there was a space room dedicated to educating the public about space shuttles and how people live in space. Along the walls on the second floor was a montage of photos taken by individuals as the shuttle was taken through the streets of LA.

I think this exhibit is a perfect way to cap off the blogs for this class. This exhibit embodies what I feel science and art have interacted. They work together to produce something great. This is why I posted the picture above. You can't really have one without the other. Art generally is influenced by science. Art is then commonly used to communicated these ideas to the general public, often to simplify, explain or teach.

For example, take a look at the images above. They embody the idea of art being able to teach and explain. The image on the left is an example of nanotech art. Art, from this field, is often used to explain to the general public what is going on. Here art is used as a teaching aide to explain a foreign concept. The image on the right is an image of the Endeavor exhibit. All different sorts of media arts line the walls of the exhibit to explain different aspects of the Endeavour. These include mission details, horror stories, etc. These walls combine the sciences and the arts. From art, we are able to grasp the importance of the Endeavour and why it is worthy of our attention. This is one of the major important uses of art, especially in the emerging science fields that are complicated.

On the other hand, science also affects the way we "art". Science also has an equally influential power on art as well. Take a look at the image on the left. That is an example of fractal art. Fractal art is essentially art made using mathematical equations to produce visually stunning pieces. Here we see how science could be incorporated to produce a whole new field of art. Sometimes though, science doesn't have to produce new fields. It can change the way we portray or do something in art. The image on the above right is a pointer machine. It essentially does the sculpture without the human sitting there chiseling away. While creating sculptures isn't new, this scientific machine allows us to do it differently. Other examples include studying math to understand perspective on a 2-d surface or studying anatomy to more accurately portray the human body. Science's main influence on art is its ability to transform and broaden its reach and increase its potential. The more technology that science produces, the more that art can do with it. Science makes art more accessible than ever before and will continue to improve its potential.

Science and art go hand in hand. Like the image above, there are many places in which they overlap. In addition there are many ways in which one influences the other. Like the question "did the chicken or the egg come first", art and science influence go back and forth. This Endeavour exhibit embodies this. The shuttle tour and the fascination with this shuttle contributed to this exhibit which displays all different kinds of media art. In return, art is able to communicate why the fascination exists to the public. This exhibit is a great example of science and art working hand in hand to produce a work.

Event 4 - JAMES WELLING: MONOGRAPH

On December 6th, I also went to visit the James Welling Exhibit. His exhibit was expansive, spanning many decades and experimenting with many different mediums and style of art. It is actually quite impressive, and a bit overwhelming for someone who had no idea who he was. While Welling experimented with many things that I could discuss, the coolest part to me was his work on the Maison de Verre.

Welling took pictures of the house which he found to be dark and depressing. The above left photo I believe captures the scene he saw. However, using photo editing technology, Welling was able to radically alter the color and space of the house in his photos. He was able to make the the dark, depressing house look elegant and bright (pictured on the right). He was able to completely misrepresent what he saw and turn it into something completely different. This got me thinking.

Above as I hope everyone knows, is an image of Darth Vader. I wanted to discuss an idea that most people don't associate with art: the dark side. Most people associate art with good, creative, emotional. It's basically only seen in a positive manner. Art is usually seen as the artists representation of what he sees. Few consider that art could also be used for more devious, darker purposes.

Take a look at the Augustus Primaporta. It was common during this period of Roman rule for leaders to appear both strong and youthful. It instilled fear in their enemies and confidence in the citizens of roman. This is one of the earliest examples of propaganda. Even during his old age, Augustus still commissioned sculptures that made him look as if he was still a young adult. Here he was deceiving his enemies and his citizens to portray an image which he clearly could not truthfully maintain. While not the most evil of purposes, it still shows arts ability to deceive.

Take a look at the art above. That is an example of Nazi propaganda. The essence of the piece is to instill hate in the Jews by demonstrating that Jews only cared for money. Now everyone knows that this isn't necessarily true, but it was effective in Nazi Germany. This piece demonstrates art's dark side. It was used to manipulate reality and portray Jews in a negative light. This style of art doesn't only occur in stringent governments or things of that nature. It occurs everyday, especially in media.

A quick google search found me this anti-gay book. This is just one example of the potential media has to shape the way society thinks. With new technologies like photoshop, videos, etc, art has a greater potential to misrepresent reality. Its ability to confuse/manipulate has increased exponentially.While we like to think that no one would manipulate people using art, it is always the possibility. We also consider the great potential art and technology has, but we never consider the darker side. This idea hit me as I walked through the Welling exhibit.

Event 3 - FORREST BESS: SEEING THINGS INVISIBLE

On December 6th, I went to visit the Bess exhibit at the Hammer Museum. Quite honestly, I did not find his art very intriguing but his life story and how it relates to our class resounded with me.

Why did I post the picture above? While serving in the army, Bess admitted that he was gay. As a result, he was beat and sustained a traumatic brain injury. After this brain injury, Bess began to see visions and hallucinations. And from my understanding, it was these sights which stimulated Bess' artistic career.

While not exactly the same situation, Bess reminds me of the many famous artists who reportedly suffered from neurological issues that affected their art. One of the most famous examples is Van Gogh. I talked about Van Gogh in the Medtech and art week. I see a strong connection between Bess and that week.

Bess' head injury allows him to perceive things differently than most people. This affects his artistic style, much like the artists who had neurological issues.His injury, I believe, is analogous to drugs that have the capability of changing perception. Hence, the pyschadellic art above, influenced by drugs. His brain altering injury permanently changed how he sees things. His subconscious and his dreams become visible to him, much like lucid dreaming.

A great example of this is Sticks. Bess drew this piece shortly after he discovered that his parents did not really want him as a child. This "vision" came to him that night and he drew it shortly after. In the artwork, Bess is represented by the black line. He does not belong with the rest of the other popsicle sticks.

Bess, in a very sick way, had an advantage artistically due to his head injury. Much like my blog on how I discussed the advantages of taking drugs as an artist, Bess was able to perceive things differently than most. He had a "natural" drug if you will. Connecting science and art, many scientists actually do neurological studies on many artists and study the effects of drugs and disease on artists. Studies have already shown how artists brains are differently constructed than normal people which allow them to perceive things differently. Drugs only exacerbate that fact. Artists like Bess are invaluable to science. Perhaps the secret to why artists are artists lies in the brains of artists like Bess.

This made me think about a scary possibility. Some artists are willing to take drugs to help them perceive things differently and inspire them. What if we were to find the parts of the brain which influence the creative side? Would people be willing to under go surgery or other enhancements to gain an advantage? We've already seen people willing to self-mutiliate in the name of extreme art. We've also seen people break legs and push the limits of the bodies for those slight advantages. What makes them stop here? At what point does science begin to hurt art?

Week 9: Space and Art

This week we discussed the inter-relationship between Space and Art. While many interesting things were discussed this week, the most interesting idea that came to my mind was that this week is different in my eyes. In all the previous weeks, from my memory, we discussed how science has influenced art. Innovation in each field of science has influenced the techniques artists use, the way things are perceived, and the increased potential artists have. This is the only week where we see art influencing and changing the paradigms of science.

Artists' imaginations predict where science will take us. Take a look at the picture above. Those are scenes from Star Trek Enterprise TV show from the 1980s. This was an early depiction of the concept of "touch screens". A couple of decades later, touch screens are ubiquitous in modern society (Plafke). Art like Star Trek are one of the many examples in which artists and their imaginations were able to predict what science technology will come about (Adam). Science fiction writers take a look at what science is readily available and let their imagination transform this into new ideas (Sterling).

In fact, scientists actively know this and look to art for inspiration to see what they can do.  Scientists Gresh and Weinberg actually scoured through different anime series to see what concepts might actually be viable in the real world (Gresh & Weinberg, 2005). They discuss what innovations may be necessary to bring imagination into reality.

I have to say that I understand that this relationship between science fiction and art is not one dimensional. Science influences science fiction as much as the vice versa. In fact, studies on this relationship show a very complex model of influence. This multi-directional influence connects science fiction and science (Bassett et al). However, this is the first time that I have seen art have the ability to influence science as much as science can influence art. I noticed that influence was much more one-sided before this.

Sources

Plafke, James. "Aerial Imaging Plate Turns Holograms into Touchscreens, Upstages Star Wars." ExtremeTech. Ziff Davis, Inc, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

Rutherford, Adam. "From Fantasy to Reality: How Science Fiction Has Influenced Technology." The Guardian. WIRED.com, 22 Sept. 2010. Web. 02 Dec. 2013. 

Sterling, Bruce. "Science Influenced by Science Fiction." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 22 Sept. 2010. Web. 02 Dec. 2013. 

Gresh, Lois H., and Robert Weinberg. "The Science of Anime: Mecha-Noids and AI-Super-Bots." (2005).

Bassett, Caroline, Ed Steinmueller, and George Voss. "Better Made Up: The Mutual Influence of Science fiction and Innovation." (2013).

Week 8: NanoTech and Art

Nanotechnology is a new, emerging field with untapped potential. For someone who is a fan of science fiction and is a budding scientist, it is a perfect combination.The possibilities of nanotechnology and the approach to getting there intrigue me. What captured my attention most this week was the Drexler-Smalley debate. I wanted to weigh in on this debate since I have a bit of a science background.

To summarize the debate (as I understand it), Drexler proposed the idea of nano-sized molecular assemblers (Drexler, 1986). These ambiguously described assemblers would have the capability almost anything and copy themselves. Smalley refuted Drexler's ideas. He claimed that these molecular assemblers were unfeasible as the science at that scale would be extremely difficult to compensate for (Smalley 2001). While Drexler's idea is extremely fascinating conceptually, this seems much more something out of a science fiction world. I have a hard time imagining how Drexler's assemblers would be able to follow the laws of chemistry and biochemistry like he proposes. This is a point that Smalley also points out (Drexler & Smalley, 2003).

If I were a nanotech designer, I would much rather follow what nature has provided for us. The problem I see with Drexel's plans is that there’s no real way to efficiently produce his machines and assemblers. Even if you produce one, you can’t really recreate it unless you manually do it all over again, since there is no real way to replicate it biologically. In addition, Drexel's ideas do not really take into account the biochemistry operating at such molecular levels. He just assumes that his machines would be feasible and he can move one atom over at a time, but that's just not how chemistry works.

Take a look at the two images above. Both images are cellular proteins that naturally occur in nature. The top image is an image of ATP Synthase. This protein is vital for life and functions essentially the same as a water turbine. The bottom picture is an image of a motor protein. When things need to move to other parts of the cell, these motor protein "walkers" walk along the microtubule "street" with the structure attached (Marx). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8 is the link to see the "walking" in action. These microscopic machines are reminiscent of machines that we use today. These biological/natural machines are genearlly much more efficient than their macroscale counterparts (Mavroidis et al).

Over millions of years, natural selection has selected for things that improve an organism's chances to produce offspring. As a result, natural machinery has become extremely efficient. I think the direction nanotechnology would need to go is to utilize nature as a blueprint for its machinery. If not mimic nature, at least utilize what is already there. This field has the potential solve many problems and the art has the potential to help everyday people understand its importance. If I were to pick a direction for the field to go in, it would be in Smalley's direction.

Source
Drexler, E. K. "Engines of Creation (1986)." Foresight Institute 17 (2002).
Smalley, Richard E. "Of chemistry, love and nanobots." Scientific American285.3 (2001): 76.
Drexler, K. Eric. "Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against'molecular assemblers'." Chemical & Engineering News 81.48 (2003): 1.
Marx, A., et al. "Interaction of kinesin motors, microtubules, and MAPs."Journal of Muscle Research & Cell Motility 27.2 (2006): 125-137.
C. Mavroidis, A. Dubey, and M.L. Yarmush, "Molecular Machines," Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 6:363-395 (2004). 

Week 7: Neuroscience and Art

This week we discussed neuroscience's role in art. I expected this lecture to be primarily based on how drugs have influenced art throughout history. It is well known that some artists have indulged in drug usage (Erowid). As we learned in part 3 of the lectures, drugs can have an impact on our perception of the world, which I imagine can inspire new forms of art. In fact there has even been research which has studied the links between artists and drugs (Wolf). Below is an example of an artwork influenced by an LSD trip.

LSD, for example, can affect how we perceive colors and shapes (Chapter 4). A famous example of an artists whose drugs may have affected his art is Van Gogh. His drugs have been attributed to many of the artistic characteristics in his portraits and drawings (Van Gogh Gallery).

However, there was a lot more to these lectures. This lead to me questioning my previous definition of art. Before I always maintained that art had to have a message. The message could be something simple or extremely complex and profound, but it had to have a message. The first part of this lecture forced me to think about art's definition again and I am now unsure of what constitutes art.

Above are two examples of what Prof. Vesna defined as art. On the left, we have a drawing of Purkinje Cells by Ramon. On the right, we have an example of a "Brainbow". What is the message of these art works so that I could consider it art? If this is considered art, then where does art stop? When does an image cross the threshold into art? Where do movements stop and dance begins? Is art's definition changing before our very eyes?

Another idea had to do with the potential of neuroscience on art. This idea came while watching lecture 3. As I mentioned above, drugs have the ability to change how we perceive things. In a future time, when we gain a greater understanding of the brain and what separates artistic individuals from non-artistic individuals, it is possible to use drugs to stimulate those areas. Drugs can be made to access any part of the brain (Radford). If this is the case, then it is very possible that in this future, artists while no longer be unique. Everyone would be the same. I believe what makes artists unique is their ability to perceive things differently than the average person. If everyone can use a drug to help stimulate the parts of the brain that once made artists unique, would this be the end of art as we know it?

Sources

"Famous People and Their Drug Use." The Vaults of Erowid. Erowid.org, 4 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Wolf, Paul L. "The effects of diseases, drugs, and chemicals on the creativity and productivity of famous sculptors, classic painters, classic music composers, and authors." Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 129.11 (2005): 1457-1464.

"CHAPTER 4: Perception Distorting Drugs." Legal Profession Assistance Conference of the Canadian Bar Association. The Canadian Bar Association, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

"Van Gogh's Mental and Physical Health." Vincent Van Gogh Gallery. Van Gogh Gallery, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Radford, Benjamin. "'Limitless' Brain Potential? Humans Already Use Most of Their Brains."LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Week 6: Biotech and Art

This week we discussed the idea of incorporating biotechnology into art. A big component of this lecture is the ethical issues and moral issues which surround this new emerging field. This was the component which piqued my curiosity the most.

The picture above embodies the issues I see with Bio-art. Everyone knows the story of Dr. Frankenstein and his “monster”. The idea I want to take from this novel is the desire to create something and the eventual horror in what he has done (Shmoop). I believe the fear and horror with Bioart is two parts (Monstrous). Firstly, when has science gone too far (religious issues and non-religious issues)? Secondly, and also related, when does Bioart cease becoming art?  These two issues can be summed up by one general question: What is the definition of art?

Like all new mediums when they are first introduced, fear of its potential are always raised and society is hesitant. This can be seen from recent examples like television (Enli et al). The problem that today’s society is having with Bioart is defining what is acceptable and people’s fear of something new. 

From my reading, I believe most scientists are relatively ok with the coming of bioart. After reading the paper by Zurr and others on the ethical claims of bioart, it seems to me that a good portion of those who understand the science are ok with the direction Bioart is coming (Zurr et al). However, it still forces many religious and philosophical issues that many are not comfortable facing (McDonell). 

Time solves all problems. In my opinion, art’s definition will constantly be changing. Art is a representation of all the political, social, and economic issues of the time period. In addition, it is a response to the social norms, just slightly ahead of the general accepted definition. Whatever society dictates art is, art will evolve into something else. Right now, we are seeing a change in what will be considered art. Works such as Body Worlds, and other examples of Bioart, are emerging. Soon enough, I believe society will learn to accept this new art.

Sources

"Frankenstein Summary." Shmoop. Shmoop, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. 

"Frankenstein Influence on Art and Society." Monstrous.com. Monstrous.com, 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. 

Enli, Gunn, et al. "FROM FEAR OF TELEVISION TO FEAR FOR TELEVISION: Five political debates about new technologies." Media History ahead-of-print (2013): 1-15.

Zurr, Ionat, and Oron Catts. "The ethical claims of bio-art: Killing the other or self-cannibalism?." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 5.1 (2003): 167-188.

McDonell, Rodney. "BioArt - An Evolution In Art." SaCrIt: Highlighting the Beauty from the Intersection of Science ♥ Art. Rodney McDonell, 7 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.