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.