Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October, 2007
Week 5: science and art
In this week, we were introduced to many art works produced by science. For example, there are the models of DNA, the attempt creation of third ear and the cactus project by Laura Cinti.
In scientific terms, DNA is nucleic acid that contains genetic information for an organism. It is essential in all life forms, regardless whether the life is animal or plants. In science book, we would see DNA be represented as a double helix string with other acids connects to them. This graphical display of DNA is itself an art. It is amazing to think that the billions different cells in an organism’s body are all made up of a simple pattern. When different types of acids are represented in different colors, the resulting picture is a colorful double helix. As one zoomed out of the DNA view, one can see how DNA works to keep the bodies functioning. It is a natural art to see how a simple piece of DNA can keep the body going. Human have tried to imitate the magical nature by trying to create a simple body part like an ear.
As the webpage Switched.com announced on 12th of Oct. 2007, Stelios Arcadious’ latest project has the ability to implement an ear to a person’s arm. The ear is a real ear but not cut off from another person or animal. Instead, it is “grown in a lab from cells.” This attempt to manipulate the natural laws of nature is a great advancement in science. From the start of science, scientists have tried in every way to control nature and change nature to human’s desire. We have the ability to cause rain. We can insert certain gene inside plants to cause them to have more fruit or even seedless fruits. Now, animal body parts can be created and be placed on the body. For some, this scientific accomplishment is considered as art for most, it is disturbing. One way or another, the fact is that our medical technology has gone farther than before.
The last art piece that was introduced in Monday’s lecture was Laura Cinti’s Cactus project. It is claimed to be a scientific art called transgenic art. In this project, scientists use the human’s hair gene and inserted it into several cactuses. The result is a normal cactus growing human hair. For this group of people, the technology of transgenic is a form of art. It is correct to assume that the ability to combine different DNA from several organisms is a significant accomplishment for them. On the positive side, this ability can be used to make one invincible to disease if he were injected with the strongest immune system of all species. On the other hand, many others would be concerned with the moral aspect of this accomplishment. For me, this “accomplishment” is plain disturbing. I cannot claim that such activity is an art or not, but I know for certain that it is not aesthetically pleasing.
Artificial Intelligence and the GFP Bunny
Is artificial intelligence really intelligent?
Computer systems today are capable of incredible feats of computation that far exceed the abilities of humans. We depend on computers to do such complicated tasks as guiding the flight path of NASA rockets. But as impressive as these things are, the way all computers function makes their “intelligence” very limited. Jeff Hawkins, inventor of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, addresses this issue in his book On Intelligence. In the book, Hawkins asserts that real (human) intelligence is based on the ability to learn new things and adapt to changing information based on past knowledge stored as memories. Computers lack this ability completely; they are only able to perform the specific tasks they were programmed for and are unable to complete the task if it is altered in anyway, without being reprogrammed. In On Intelligence, Hawkins gives the following example to show the limits of computer “intelligence”: Whereas essentially any person would be able to figure it out almost instantly, even the most powerful computers in the world wouldn’t be able to predict what the last word will be in this ________ (sentence). Hawkins wants to one day create truly intelligent machines by wiring them not like modern computers but by mimicking the way human brains are wired. It’s a fascinating book that is surprisingly easy to read but has far reaching implications in neuroscience, computer technology and other areas.
Is the GFP Bunny art?
I was surprised by how Mr. Edward Shanken’s lecture on the GFP Bunny elicited very strong responses from members of the class, so I figured I would give my take on the subject. I actually feel that the bunny is art, albeit not in the most traditional sense of the word. As we progress farther and farther in our technological abilities, the reality is that society will have to face the moral and ethical questions of genetic engineering and transgenic practices. GFP Bunny, to me, forces us to think about these issues. The image of that neon green bunny rabbit is a striking one, and in a way puts a face on an issue that most have a hard time imagining. I personally have very little background in art, but for me art is something that challenges our thinking or that makes us see things in a different light. GFP Bunny accomplishes this quite well, as was made apparent by the emotional reactions it drew from our class. But I think that more important than the question of whether it is art or not are the questions that GFP Bunny itself raises about genetic engineering. These are the questions we should be focusing on.
Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6CVj5IQkzk
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Art or Science?: The GFP Bunny
This week’s presentation on the “GFP Bunny” was a certainly a controversial topic in terms of the difference between art and science. Art: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance”-dictionary.com. Is “Alba”, the transgenic albino rabbit, a form of art? Or is this bunny just an example of science and experimentation with genetics? “GFP Bunny” is a transgenic “Art” project created by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac. This bunny was born in April of 2000 and contains a certain jellyfish gene that, when illuminated with the correct light, makes her glow green. This green fluorescent protein (GFP) from the Pacific Northwest jellyfish was injected into the fertilized egg of an albino rabbit. Sounds like more of an experiment than a form of art, right?
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Personally, I distinguish this bunny as more of a scientific experiment, rather than art. The only reason I might consider perceiving this scientific experiment as an art form is the fact that it looks appealing and is unique. The bunny, however, is a living creature, and is only different in the sense that it glows green. The word “art”, in today’s society has definitely been linked to many different things. But everything is not art. There should be a limit to what is defined as art. If this bunny is in fact considered a work of art, then dogs are an art form as well. Dogs are genetic experiments as well, so are they considered art as well? Or is the natural transgenic process that does not allow dogs to glow green, a barrier that does not categorize this as an art form? Genetic experimentation with living creatures, even with humans is not an art form, it is a science. This bunny perhaps will make an interesting pet, but not a work of art. It is merely controlled experiment by a scientist that calls himself an artist.
Week 4: Interactive Fiction
by Blair Georgakas
The topic of Artificial Intelligence brought up last week really sparked my interest. We talked about ELIZA, the computer therapist which was programmed in 1966 and parodied a Rogerian therapist. In class, we logged onto a website and had a short and very superficial conversation with ELIZA. Her responses mostly consisted of rephrasing what our professor typed in. It reminded me of middle school when everyone was obsessed with instant messaging. My friend had told me about a “computer friend” otherwise known as “Smartchild.” Smartchild was a computer program which basically did the same thing as ELIZA. It would talk and respond to someone as if it was a person. However, its responses were very limited. They came up with others as well. Soon I was talking to new computer friends like MLB, which gave me updates on major league baseball games and news.
ELIZA influenced many other interactive computer games. One of the biggest ones was Dungeon, which was created in 1975 by Don Daglow. It is a role playing game where players chose which actions their characters would take and gained experience points. Another game that spawned around the same time was Adventure, programmed by Will Crowther. ELIZA undoubtably inspired the creation of Adventure in some way as well. Adventure was the first game to really set off the whole genre of interactive fiction. Interactive fiction software includes games in which input is required by the user. A person using the software controls characters with text commands. A more recent example of an interactive fiction game is Myst, which came out in 1993 by Macintosh. It was a game of adventure where the player had no real time limit or threat of dying. There are no obvious goals in the game and it requires logical thinking. I have never actually played the game myself, however I remember when I was younger my dad used to play all the time. I always wondered what the whole game and obsession was all about, but was always too young to understand any of it. Now realizing the game revolves around logic, I understand why my dad in particular enjoyed it because he has always loved mind games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst
http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/gamezone/html/reviews/myst.htm
GFP Bunny is a Sham
Is GFP bunny art?
Absolutely not. The problem with GFP bunny being art is the fact that there is truly no artistic expression in it. The “artist” simply went to a genetic engineer and said “make me a green bunny.” How is that art? How is that different from me walking into Petco and saying “Hi, I’d like that black mouse over the white one.” The only difference is that science was used to engineer this bunny, rather than picking or choosing it. Kac had no choice in his colors. This would be the equivalent of me going to an art store, getting paint of all the same color because the store was out, and then just painting a canvas all one color. There is no choice in this creation. Art is dictated by conscious choice, which neither GFP bunny nor my monochrome painting have.
However, while I believe that it is not art, I believe that it could be the creation of a new genre of art. If science could progress to the point where one could consciously choose the colors they wanted to make an animal, then we might have a new breed of art. Even more so, if humans could discover a way to make patterns in animals, or create a new animal, then we could call this art. Unfortunately for Kac, GFP bunny, while scientifically impressive, is not art. If this were science class, he would get an A+, but an F in art. Besides, it was not even Kac who genetically modified Alba! The geneticist Louis-Marie Houdebine made Alba, and deserves full credit. Hats off to Houdebine for an amazing scientific feat, and shame on Kac for trying to pass off Alba as art.
If one wants to argue that Alba is a piece of art, then aren’t we all genetic pieces of art? Is “God” not an artist then? If Alba is art, and we are all art, we should all be proud of ourselves because we are superior forms of it. I have opposable thumbs, and I’m much smarter than a bunny rabbit (I hope). Alba is then an inferior to us, just with more fluorescent green fur.
The reason we are all superior to GFP bunny
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposable_thumbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Fluorescent_Protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Kac
http://www.ekac.org/
Art in Biology
Nature is rich in beauty
Earlier this year, Lisa Huyett, an art student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania used a scanning electron microscope (S.E.M.) to magnify the surface of a rose petal then created a large-scale representation of it with thousands of pipe cleaners. Her installation, called “S.E.M. Rose“, was based on her experience using scanning electron microscopy, which employs a beam of electrons to reveal a surface’s nanostructure up to one million times.
Working under the guidance of an electron microscopist at the Mellon College of Science, she magnified a rose petal surface 500 times. She held workshops for kids at the Pittsburgh Children’s Museum to build the installation which, when completed, was displayed at the Children’s Museum and at the FRAME Gallery in Pittsburgh. Huyett’s S.E.M. Rose perfectly demonstrates the connection between biology and art. Huyett said, “”All of my work is inspired by nature and plant material. Patterns in nature give me inspiration for abstraction . . . I’m very interested in relating art to science. In this case, I am taking small, familiar material to make something large-scale.”
Alba, the G.F.P. Bunny
Initially, I refused to accept the idea that the fluorescent bunny could be considered art. I could not understand how the GFP bunny could be anything other than a scientific experiment. The bunny was fertilized in a laboratory in France and injected with a fluorescent protein (GFP) from a Pacific Northwest jellyfish, to me that scientific procedure can not produce meaningful art. It seems the definition of art continues to be blurred and declining. I will agree that the bunny, shown in a new context, does evoke emotions and sparks controversy as certain artworks do but I still cannot see how Alba can be art.
http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2007/March/march6_rose.shtml
http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Week 4 – Bio Art
Is the GFP bunny art?
It is difficult to say if the GFP bunny is art, though the speaker did make convincing arguments that it is art. Looking back at Duchamp’s ready made art, Kac’s fluorescent GFP bunny can be considered art. Duchamp took mass produced items and made it into art. So there is precedent for what Kac is asserting that Alba, the florescent bunny, is art. The speaker also brings up that Kac went beyond Duchamp somewhat by noting that Kac did more then just presenting Alba, but he also brought out the whole issue about transgenic animals to the public. A whole debate came about because of Alba’s creation. But, nevertheless, Alba is just another one of a commonly produced transgenic animal, though for art rather then science, that can barely glow normally. As a class mate stated during the lecture, making a Pokemon would be way cooler and probably be consider art. It is also interesting to consider how it is okay to make transgenic animal for science purposes but not for art. Maybe a way to get around that is do use the transgenic animal scientifically but also with an underlying art intention.
How does eminent property lead to intelligence?
Eminent property is where the components comes together to make something wholly more advance. Like how atoms come together to make molecules to make cells. And cells come together to make tissue, that can come together to make organs, and then organ systems, and finally an organism. Opposite of eminent property is a reduction theory where everything can be boiled down to physic. After all, everything is made of atoms that can be described in physics terms. But, a counter argument to that is that physics can’t be used to explain the behavior of an organism or its habits and reactions. Some how after chains of eminent property intelligence emerge. The brain is composed of neuron cells that signal each other via transmission of electrical charges. With such signal transmissions intelligence is possible, to the extent of human kind. Intelligence itself is something that is rather hard to deeply examine, but it is certain that it comes about naturally because of eminent property.
http://www.ekac.org/albagreen.jpeg
http://www.artic.edu/aic/education/sciarttech/images/G19257.jpg
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/images/duchamp_in_advance.jpg
http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Cell_Biology/module_1/levels%20of%20organization.jpg
Swarm Intelligence and Transgenic Art
What are the applications of swarm intelligence?
In what way can an ant colony symbolize progress? Ant colonies are a natural example of swarm intelligence, an artificial intelligence technique based around the study of collective behavior in decentralized, self-organized systems. These intelligence systems usually consist of several smaller agents interacting on a local level between themselves and their environment. Just as in an ant colony, these intelligence systems lack a singular centralized control structure, almost forcing a universal behavior among the system. Other examples of swarm intelligence can be found in fish schooling, bird flocking, and bacterial growth. Swarm intelligence has also had an influence on robotics. Swarm robotics utilizes several small simple robots in conjunction with one another and their environment on tasks that require miniaturization or cheap designs. Its influence has been felt within microbotics and the human body, as well as common farming tactics. The GFP bunny…why?
I’m still not very wild about the creation of the GFP bunny, mainly because I don’t see the point. Yes, you engineered a bunny so it would turn green under certain lighting, but for what reason? Just for laughs, or was there a specific motive behind it? Yes, genetic engineering is very interesting and has far reaching possibilities, but aren’t there many better ways in which to display this captivating field and its potential? Furthermore, I do not see how the GFP bunny can be classified as art. Yes, the “creator” decided what the bunny would look like, but if that is art, any person who dyes their hair must also suddenly be considered an artist. I’m all in favor of thinking outside the box and applying the definition of art to fields it has not yet reached, but this is not what I had in mind. I think it diminishes the principle by making a mockery of it, and for that reason, I will keep the GFP bunny separate from Starry Night…for now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/netmanage/tony/swarm.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_59/ai_66238364
Transgenic art
The topic of Transgenic Art that Edward Shanken was very interesting. He discussed art created by the modification of the genes of an animal. The result of a project was the GFP bunny. This albino rabbit was injected with the jellyfish GFP gene that contained the sequence for a green glow. The GFP bunny is then able to glow green when exposed to blue light. During the question and answer section of his lecture, I remember most of the students asking him why GFP bunny was considered art. After all, its only a green rabbit. Does that mean if we make a blue dog, it’ll be considered art too? Shanken said that the way Eduardo Kac tried to integrate the rabbit into his family was the art, although the glow is also part of it. I did not understand what he meant, even though he did repeat that a few times. I found an interview with Kac explaining the same thing. He says, “My transgenic artwork “GFP Bunny” comprises the creation of a green fluorescent rabbit, the public dialogue generated by the project, and the social integration of the rabbit.” In this case, he is saying that art does not necessarily have to be visual. He believes that helping the rabbit interact normally with society is also art. But is it really? The debate still continues about if this is considered to be art. The formal definition of art is: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Kac would be inventing a new meaning for art. I don’t believe that the social integration of GFP bunny has any aesthetic quality to it. What Kac is doing, is simply and experiment.
Sources:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_59/ai_66238364
http://www.genomicart.org/genome-Kac.htm
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Week 4: Bio + Art
thoughts on biology and art
Biology is a very interesting field to me, considering im majoring it, I should probably think as much. I’m also into photography and work a lot with computer graphics so the idea of combining biology and art is a very interesting topic to me. I don’t really think i’ll wind up combining art with biology so much as I would bring some biology into my artwork. My midterm project for this class has a bit to due with the idea that biology and art can be combined though its nothing as extreme as some of the examples introduced in class. I really like the idea of simulating life in terms of mathematics and aesthetics. The examples we examined in class were very interesting, especially the animations (which I had seen before, actually). I would love to bring some of those ideas, such as behavioral patterns of wild animals into my work.
Why I dont like the GFP bunny
I love science, I think it’s fantastic. Moreover, I think genetic engineering is the way of the future. However, I wouldn’t call it art to ask someone else to make a bunny phosphorus green. The artist didn’t challenge any public opinion as it’s already common knowledge that genetically modified organisms are everywhere. He simply wanted to be cutting edge and attempted to do so by sacrificing his own creativity, assuming he had any to begin with. Our guest speaker attempted to validate the artist by placing his artistic aims above the lowly aesthetic. Yet, in order to remove the aesthetic, there must be an underlying idea. Yet, wasn’t the underlying idea created by…scientists? It’s not as if the artist came up with the original idea of modifying an animal. It seems that this piece is just a bunny that barely glows green. All I would think of, while looking at this piece (if it were to exist) is that genetics is going to continually involve itself in our lives.
Artificial Life and the Game of Life
John Conway’s Game of Life, created complexity from the simple rules. The human life isn’t so simple, yet it draws interest regardless of its complexity. Just in the gaming industry, there have been numerous games that includes the human life in many different forms. The game named Age of Empires allows the player to control people to achieve the given goals to survive, and advance in the technology. Game can start from pre-stone age humans to advance up to modern, or post modern cultures. However, since it is focused on being a game, most times the goal is to eliminate the enemy tribe before the player’s tribe is wiped away. It limits the freedom just to have “right” amount of play time. Since playing a game for hours and hours just to see where humanity might head is somewhat ridiculous, giving the game proper ‘victory’ to end a round is quite successful choice for a game, but not the perfect choice for a life simulation.
In the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2006, a game named ‘Spore’ was introduced. Spore, designed by Will Wright, is categorized as a ‘Life Simulation’ genre. The player is allowed to control a Cellular organism, gather food to ensure survival, and to slowly evolve. The game then evolves up to creature phase where the player now controls a creature to gather food, ensure survival, and evolve. In this stage, player can drastically alter the creature’s shape by designing the creature’s offspring. Later stage, player’s designed creatures forms a tribe and evolve as a whole, than just evolving as a single creature. Sooner or later, player’s controlled tribe competes with other tribes developed on the same planet, then depending on the successfulness, takes control over the planet. Then the player can send space exploration, and can choose to start a life form in a completely new barren planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA
Spore lets the player control artificial life forms and evolve them through whatever phases that come. I thought that this connects very well to the artificial life (since the player can alter the creature at will) and John Conway’s Game of Life (since Spores is also a game and controlled by simple rule: survive and reproduce).
Links:
Official Spore website: http://www.spore.com/
Expansionism and the Arts
In 476AD, the world saw the end of the Western Roman Empire. Nearly a thousand years later, its successor, the Byzantine Empire, likewise collapsed. Other noteworthy empires–the British and the Ottoman, for example–fell prey to economic outmaneuvering and the ravages of world wars. Yet what caused the fall of Rome? In comparing the flourishing peace of Pax Romana to the inwards crumble of Rome or the violent collapse of the Byzantines, one clear factor in common was the overexpansion of the empire. That which too readily ate up its neighbors was in turn too readily robbed of the same assets. The British Empire had learned this lesson; when the time came in the early twentieth century to de-colonize, they grudgingly yielded to the necessity of downsizing their reach, and thusly preserved what properties they could safely retain.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, I posit the idea that Art is an empire. Likewise, one can label Science to be the same; however, Art is unique in its freedom to expand as it wishes. Aesthetics are highly subjective, and if one person creates something that they believe to be artistic, there is little room for others to disagree–at least, there will be no changing the opinion of the artist. Such was seen in the last lecture on the subject of the GFP Bunny; despite many protests to the contrary, Mr. Shanken (sorry if I got the name wrong) was steadfast in his definition of the subject as art. If we were to go back to the Roman model one might connect this phenomenon to the peripheral communities who did not identify themselves as Roman, but were subsumed in the name of the Empire despite this minor detail. This may be taking the analogy a bit too far, but it brings up the point originally intended: Art may be expanding its borders at too fast a rate.
Fortunately there is no true counter-Empire to that of the Arts; were Art to theoretically fall, the void of Aesthetics could only be filled by the very same Art; one might say its immortality is by virtue of its definition. However, the other ailments of imperial collapse are not so easily avoided. That is, were there a point at which Art had expanded its boundaries to include too vast a reach of subjects, it could fall victim to (1) lack of governmental support, i.e. a decrease in recognition from the people (which we can already see in a variety of the more obscure or less accessible forms of art); (2) attack from external forces, i.e. a rejection of the Arts by a casual observer, particularly as a result of inaccessible artwork; (3) underpopulation, i.e. a lack of artists, too thinly distributed over so many sects; (4) civil rebellion, i.e. protest within the artistic community; and many more. To be sure, all of these problems occur not only in overgrown empires, but in any State; however, expansionism past maintainable capacity is a catalyst for their geometric growth.
Thus I protest not the liberty of artists to constantly push the boundaries of Art, but instead the propriety of doing so. Although Art clearly thrives on the advantageous aspects of innovative growth, it is not impervious to the less advantageous side effects of doing so. My concern is simply that, while Art has not befallen any great calamity due to its expansionism, it might be on the brink of doing so; or, if there is no sudden cliff to fall off of, we may be on the top of a very long downwards slope, a gradual degradation that accelerates as time goes by. The empirical evidence goes against me; Art has been expanding since it was first conceived. However, its growth is exponential, and with every step made in other fields of innovation, such as science, multiple new venues of artistic expression open. I cannot help but worry that we are inevitably heading towards an Artistic carrying capacity–if not an imperial collapse, a Malthusian one.
Since I would be far too long-winded if I were to discuss Malthus, I’ll put up links about him instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6366&pageno=8
Week 4 – Biology and Art
How has tensegrity allowed art to inspire science?
Tensegrity is a relatively new concept that affects both art and science. The notion was first studied by artist Kenneth Snelson, who used the idea to create his sculpture, Needle Tower in 1968. Tensegrity is a concept that relates to the compression and tension that can work together to create strength in a structure. Although, this relationship between the push and pull of objects working together to create a structure was first recognized by an artist, scientists soon took note of its repeated occurrence throughout nature. In biology, this structure can be found in muscles, bones and cell membranes. Tensegrity in this sense has been given the name biotensegrity by orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Stephen Levin. He has a really great website that talks not only about the function that tensegrity has in biology, but also relates the concept to current works in art and architecture. It is a prominent example of science and art working together to create new medical solutions using tensegrity.
It’s not easy being green.
I noticed that the GFP bunny discussed on Wednesday induced many strong feelings from the class. While I perceived that most who voiced their opinions were in favor of labeling the bunny as some sort of science experiment, I could not help but feel that for this reason alone the bunny should be viewed as a piece of art. I say this for a few reasons, first of all the act of making the bunny green was intentional. Secondly, the combination of jellyfish cells introduced to the biology of a bunny was something that had never been done before. Even if the only reason it never had been is because there is absolutely no use for a green bunny. Which brings me to my third point; the bunny had no scientific relevance. Its creation was a social statement itself, made to visually show how animals are being manipulated in labs. I don’t believe that I would have picked up on this if the bunny was exhibited in an art show, but the controversy surrounding it did bring attention to the issue. I also don’t think that this will one day be viewed as great art, only because, to me, the idea was not remarkable enough and relied to greatly on the controversy and future plans for the bunny than on the bunny itself.
Swarm Intelligence
In week 4’s lecture, the topic that caught my attention the most was swarm intelligence. I was blown away by how nature works daily to perform simple tasks of migration, habitat building, management, etc. The video on the termite mounds was amazing. So I decided to do a little more research on swarm intelligence.
For something to be the work of swarm intelligence, it has to be composed of some basic qualities:
1. Many individuals must be involved.
2. The individuals must be of equal rank of each other, no outstanding leadership is involved. They must work together without someone in charge or an external force controlling them.
3. Simple behavior takes place, for the individuals to work together for one specific goal. They interact to communicate and to get tings done.
4. The goal is achieved by their interactions and their cooperation. It is self organized.
Birds and Fish demonstrate swarm intelligence by flocking and schooling. They do not have anyone in charge of the group, they simply cooperate and interact based on some simple local rules and issues. They pay attention to the distance they must travel, the speed they feel like they are traveling together, the direction of the other birds and fish, and the movement of others. This behavior performed by the birds and fish have inspired people to reproduce this behavior in computer technology. They use this programming for movies and computer games.
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/
They base the movements on three types of behaviors: separation – where they move away from the crowd to avoid collision, alignment – where they control the direction of their path to go to the same destination, and cohesion – where they move in closer to the swarm to stay together.
I started to think that we have some components of swarm intelligence in human behavior as well. What about basketball? Unless we are playing basketball at an extremely competitive level, we usually do not select captains. Everybody is at the same level, we don’t choose offense or defense, everybody plays all over the court. With just simple oral communication, passing, etc., a basketball team cooperates to achieve the ultimate goal: victory. This might be wrong, but it’s just a thought!
http://scholarpedia.org/article/Swarm_Intelligence
http://www.swarmintelligence.org/
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/02/21/bonabeau.html
http://www.swarmintel.com/
Week 4: Genetics+Art=:(
Is GFP bunny art?
Yes, GFP bunny is art. To me, modern art is often the introduction of a new idea. Duchamp’s Fountain was the introduction of a new idea, and a new way of thinking. He did something that no one has ever done before, that is art. Found art is a concept that is still used today. Programs like Photoshop or Gimp alter pictures that have already been taken. They are tweaking them and putting them into new contexts just like Duchamp. Fountain is a piece of art, not because of its beauty, but because it was a challenge to what people already perceive as art. GFP bunny is similar to Fountain in this way. It challenged people’s prior notion of the purpose of science. He used science to create a pet for his personal use. Even before GFP Bunny, Kac was known for his controversial actions. He was the first person to plant a microchip into his leg. GFP bunny was another way he could do something new. Just as Duchamp took the urinal and put it an art setting, Kac brought GFP bunny into the art world. What would be considered a scientific accomplishment, was now a pet. By bringing GFP bunny into his home, although it never happened, was something that had never been done before and therefore art.
The genetically modified goats to produce spider silk were very impressive. Just like GFP bunny, the goats were genetically modified, but people seemed to receive the goats much better, well at least the video we saw made me think so. Maybe it is because the goats are being used to benefit mankind with new applications that could save lives. Or is it because we cannot be affected negatively by the goats? Genetically modified foods meet criticism because of the potential to adversely affect those who eat the food. GM food does have the potential to help humanity. Crops less susceptible to drought and disease could help reduce starvation in many countries. For many people the lack of knowledge of GM foods and the potential risk outweigh the benefits. People feel differently about the applications of genetics, but one thing is for certain it will continue to change our world and the way we live.
Week 4- Biology, Art, and Science
Is biomimicry practical or realistic?
First let’s start by going over what biomimicry is. Biomimicry is a newer field that focuses on the study of the processes, systems, models, and elements in nature to help bring about inspiration to resolve human problems. To me this seems like a very practical and realistic thing. Nature has been working for around 3.8 billion years, working to create the best structures and systems to survive. I am not going to say that nature is the perfect model, but there are many different adaptations that can be beneficial to human survival.
An example of this is the work done by Rupert Soar in his project TERMES. The purpose of Soar’s research in project TERMES is to “develop a better understanding of the structure and homeostatic function of termite mounds, with a view to identifying any lessons which can be learned, and ultimately applied, in human construction and habitation.” With project TERMES, Soar examines the mounds of Macrotermes michaelseni, a type of termite found in Africa that are infamous for their ability to create mounds that incorporate a complex thermal regulating system. The goal is to understand the complex thermal regulation system so that it can be used to benefit humanity. More information about the specific details of project TERMES can be found by clicking the sandkings link.
The impact of project TERMES is already evident. Architect Mick Pearce used the research from the project to build a mid-rise building in Harare, Zimbabwe (Eastgate) that uses the termite inspired ventilation system to stay cool. With the ventilation system, the building is able to use only 10% of the energy of a conventional building its size. Thus, it is evident that biomimicry is both very practical and realistic. There are so many things that can be learned and improved through biomimicry.
If the GFP bunny is a piece of art, does that mean that the goats that produce biosteel are also pieces of art?
It is difficult to argue something as not being a work of art, but I have trouble visualizing the GFP bunny as a work of art. I am a scientist and am probably a little biased with my opinion, but to me it is nothing more than a science experiment. Years prior to the GFP bunny scientists had been using the same GFP technology in animals for research purposes. The GFP bunny is not a new concept at all. And furthermore it only glows when a black light is shone on it, which is something that happens naturally with a lot of other things.
If the GFP bunny is considered a piece of art, then what is stopping other transgenic animals from being considered works of art? For example, would goats that produce biosteel be works of art? Their genetic mutation may not be a visible as that of the GFP bunny, but it is basically the same concept. But there are not a lot of people, if anyone that seriously considers the transgenic goats at Nexia to be works of art. They are scientific achievements, but that does not make them art.
Links:
http://www.biomimicryguild.com/indexguild.html
http://www.sandkings.co.uk/news.htm
http://www.biomimicry.net/biomimicryintroduction.htm
http://www.nexiabiotech.com/en/01_tech/01-bst.php
http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/pages_genetics_culture/gc_w03/hoyt_alba_response.htm
Art, Science, or Both?
Is a Urinal or a Green Rabbit Art?
After reflecting on wednesday’s lecture by our guest speaker I have come to my conclusion on what art is. To me, art is something that draws an emotion or a feeling from its audience, the same emotion that the artist himself felt while creating his work. It does not have to be understood by all, but I do not believe that a GFP Bunny or a urinal should be considered art.
How Kac was able to manipulate gene cells in a rabbit to make it glow green can be looked at as a great scientific discovery, but it is not art. I also do not believe that Duchamp’s urinal is art either. All he did was move something from a bathroom and put it into an artroom. A blue-collar worker might walk into that art gallery and relieve himself in it, knowing that it is only a urinal. I do not consider either of these things art.
(Although I do not consider the GFP bunny art, I do appreciate our guest speaker’s passion and enthusiasm toward his belief.)
GFP Rabbit and Kac
Yes, the GFP rabbit is a scientific breakthrough. If we are someday able to maipulate genes in humans as Kac did in the rabbit we would be able to cure many diseases and prevent others before they even happened. This technology, if used in the right way could save many lives. But with this on the frontier our government needs to place strict regulations on how far scientists can experiment with manipulating genes. (We don’t want any man playing God.) Kac’s scientific breakthrough can change our future forever, but only in the field of science, not art.
Is this really art?
Biology and Art
How is A.I. an Art?
Based on review and previous lectures the robotics and mutational transformations of living tings do not depict any sense of the art world. No where do I see the esthetics’s of art transposed in the biology of humans or animals. The green bunny is no art to me, for that bunny to be considered art it should grow some Persian rug pattern ON its fur or else its just a science experiment The arts consist of the creativity and imagination of the artist not the reconstruction of an organism. It is true that much like the scientist the artist also has his procedures but the procedures of the artists are more welcoming to error while the scientist can explore a body and leave it dead. The only successful correlation of science and art the is the use of Da Vincis Vitruvian Man. It is in this image that Da Vinci transcends the art world and incorporates the science world back in the Renaissance era. The proportions of the body are precise and are exact to the proportions of the human body.
Why fight over the Green Bunny?
The whole idea of the of the third culture is ignored over the concept of whether the green bunny is art or not. The third culture promises to incorporate the arts and sciences together as one but yet the GFP bunny has brought up speculation whether the bunny is an art or a science. Why? Although the artists and the scientist strive to one day work together it is of nature to apply the controlling aspect of a character in life. The artist wants to consider the bunny art while the scientist wants to consider the bunny science. In my opinion the bunny is none. It is not an art because it does not impose a sense of creativity or individuality that usually makes the artist. It is not a science because science strives for some type of advancement the bunny portrays no sense of advancement rather it has an immature feel to. Who wants green bunnies running around the house? Whether it is a science or an art, the bunny does not allow for the construvtion of the third culture.
http://www.yale.edu/rosenbaum/gfp_gateway.html
http://www.conncoll.edu/ccacad/zimmer/GFP-ww/GFP-1.htm
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2005/051004.Alstatt.bunny.html
Week 4 – Peter Chang
Art and Biology:
Before entering college, I had the opportunity to work with various 3D-Modeling programs as a hobby. Since my sister was studying to be a doctor at the time, my parents suggested to me a practical application of my extra skill. Because then knew I was skilled in using computers in general, they suggested that I combine my two skills of 3D modeling and computers to make in depth models of biological systems, just to kind of keep in step with my sister (since I personally disliked biology). Although I never ran with that idea my parents threw at me, I still think about the applications 3D modeling can have with biology.Working first hand with 3D modeling, I would consider any sort of work in that field as a type of art. It so amazes me then how close art and biology have been since the beginning of time.
There are so many aspects of biology that involve art that it is hard to name all examples. In terms of visual arts, the first thing that comes to my head would be Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. Da Vinci turned man into a piece of art by showing how the human body is proportioned.
Today we can see further evidence of artwork comingling with biology from the simple act of getting an annual check-up at the doctors office. Look at the walls around the room your are put in and you get my idea. Those pictures are full of diagrams of the human esophagus with and without asthma (and more of course), all of which are drawn by some skilled artist working with biology.
Visual biology doesn’t just end with some poster of the human body, take PET and CAT scans for example. Technology has advanced so much that now we can create 3D visualizations of the insides of an actual human body (Sorry Mom, they already invented the scanners).
Last week I discussed kinetic art and cybernetics. Now apply that to biology, what do you get? Sure you’re missing an arm but thanks to the art of bio-engineering we have your solution – the Prosthetic! Like sculpting a limb for a bronze man, bio-engineers can create custom prosthetics for anyone in need of one.
Acoustic art and biology? Ears are like clocks, their tiny mechanical parts work in unison to precision for humans to hear sounds. Like a horologist (clock repair people), an audiologist fixes the human ear with the same artistic precision.
To top it all off, the reading we had for this week is just another perfect example of the combination of art and biology. Using straws and strings to create tensing and compression forces to describe a living cell is amazing. Ending up being right about it is a stroke of artistic and scientific genius. Indeed professor Vesna was right when she said that biology would be the biggest section in DESMA.
Off-Topic: Every week I come to the DESMA lectures and discussions I get strangely confused when I think of what art really is. Come to think of it, I’m not really sure whether art is just the study of things that look pretty or the application of things that look pretty to life. For the past few weeks I’ve been treating art as if it was the latter but I keep getting the feeling that that is just too general. If the application of aesthetics (of all five senses) to life is all art is, then why shouldn’t everything be considered art? You can photograph a chemist toiling away at his or her work and call that art, but why would it be called art only after the photo is taken? The chemist still toils away at his work for the pursuit of a deeper meaning of something, which is analogous to who we call “artists” toiling away at his or her canvas toward a deeper meaning of something. Whatever the case, I think this is a topic I find interesting to talk about despite how confused I get thinking about it.
Week 4: Genetic Modification
What applications does the concept of swarm intelligence have in today’s computer world?
Swarm intelligence in the natural world is observed when a group of independent organisms collectively respond to environmental stimuli without instruction (for example, a school of fish evading a predator). Today, computer programmers have utilized the concept of swarm intelligence in file transferring. Instead of one user interacting with the server at a time, multiple users can download the same file at the same time. The downloaded file is simple cut into smaller pieces, and multiple users download different pieces at different times. Moreover, users can interact with each other to download these pieces. The benefit: huge files can be delivered to a large number of users without burdening the server. As more and more users download, the network becomes a large grid of file-transferring users interacting with each other and the server. It is very interesting how computer programmers use natural phenomena to design their programs—more evidence of how the natural world can be reduced to mathematical formulas.
Do the benefits of genetically modified organisms outweigh the risks?
Altering the genes of animals and plants can lead to healthier, cheaper, and more abundant sources of food, but at what cost? If genetically modified animals were to escape and reproduce with wild animals, ecosystems would experience irreparable changes. For example, scientists speculated about fish that were genetically engineered to grow faster. In the event that some of these modified fish escaped and bred with wild fish, they would be directly competing with the wild fish for both food and mating partners (which could lead to the extinction of certain fish populations). Another problem lies in the expression of new genes: if genetically modifying an animal for food caused new, unpredicted proteins to be produced, allergic reactions could be triggered in a small number of people. It is clear that genetically modifying organisms comes with great responsibility. Genetic modification has enormous potential to solve one of the world’s most prevalent problems: malnutrition. However, there are many more potential risks to genetic modifications than the ones mentioned above, none of which should be taken lightly.
http://onionnetworks.com/technology/swarming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1229
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/07/30/and/
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Animals-Pose-RisksWSJ21aug02.htm
Week 4 – Biotechnology – By Nathan Hsu
Is it moral to produce transgenic animals?
Given the advanced technology, “Playing God” no longer seems so improbable. From the discovery of microscope that uncovered the unseen dimensions of organisms to the innovative methods of altering genomes, the paradigm of biology has definitely shifted toward another level. With the present advancement in biotechnology, humans now are capable of decoding the DNA as well as modifying it – it is possible to create a chimera, an ancient mythological creature with a combination of characteristics of multiple animals. As exciting as it may seem, it is also frightening – Do we have the right to freely transform in the livings whatever that we deem unfit, while attempting to counter what the evolution has chosen? What will happen, then, if we attempt to make fearsome creations that never mean to exist? These questions make us ponder. There are two possible ways: the scientists, applying the biotechnological knowledge, find solutions for originally cureless diseases and benefit the society. Or, on the other hand, they, with the power to play God, create dreadful organisms which result in endangering the entire species on Earth. Let’s hope that the latter will never happen.
What influence has the advancing biotechnology on Art?
Arguably, the fluorescent rabbit is a work of art. Because the definition for Arts is so broad and boundless, it seems anything could apply to the Artistic Realm. In the presentation on Monday, I was astounded to see how common transgenic animals are in the science field and how few people actually know about it. However, when one case was censored, the whole public seems to be more interested than ever. The boundary between art and science reveal much gray area on the topic of biotechnology. In a way, the production of transgenic animals redefines art; it makes the impossible possible. Such influence will only intensify and become more overwhelming.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/what_is_biotechnology.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TransgenicAnimals.html
W4: AI, Biology and Networks
At what point is a computer considered to possess artificial intelligence? The American Heritage New Dictionary states that AI is “The means of duplicating or imitating intelligence in computers, robots, or other devices, which allows them to solve problems, discriminate among objects, and respond to voice commands.” However, although this definition is accurate, I feel that a final, vital component (which this definition, at least from my point of view, lacks) is creativity. You could argue that creativity is part of “solving problems” but I feel that such a higher mental process deserves its own category.
The day that computers attain creativity (probably through some complex computer algorithm, created by some ‘Einstein-like’ genius), at a level equivalent to that of a human being, will be one of a grand paradigm shift. In the present, people tend to separate themselves from other beings such as animals and computers by their intelligence. Our intelligence is our pride. However, when AI becomes nearly identical to human intelligence, people will start to question what makes them different, more special. I feel that either one of three things happen. Either we all get along famously, we eradicate the human-like level of AI in order to keep our superior status, or the computers overrun and kill people … like in the movies Terminator, Matrix, I Robot, etc.
—Spoiler Alert— for Half-Life Portal
Besides movies, another example of where a computer goes completely crazy and starts killing … or better yet, playing with humans is in the computer game Half-Life Portal. The computer becomes very creative in its attempt to ‘exterminate’ you. Suffice to say, the ending song is disturbing and suggests that computers have emotions, frustrations, etc. On a side note, this game is art. I can’t even begin to imagine how they created the engine/system for the portals. It’s truly a masterpiece.
Youtube Video of Portal
Regarding networks, its interesting how biology and computer networks are related. Biological networks were the basis for computer networks. Each aspect of a biological network (ecosystem) works together to support the entire structure. This design was used as a blueprint for computer networks. However, computers have also been influential on psychology, which is, in a sense, a type of biology (at least according to UCLA, since psychology is a life-science instead of social science here). For example, thanks to the computer/calculator/etc, psychologists moved away from traditional behaviorism and towards the learning perspective which incorporates higher mental processes in their explanation for behavior.
Week 4: The future of computer networks, biology
How does computer network related to biology?
Computer networks have become an integral part of many people’s lives. The most widely used of all networks, the internet, connects millions of people cross countries. More importantly, it has fulfilled H.G. Wells’ dream: to create a system making human knowledge available to all. One important thing is that internet is not owned by any one person or corporation. Internet survives only because everyone participates in this network. All the computers are linked to the internet and people are contributing news, pictures, and videos to the internet everyday. When the internet contains more information, more people would continue to use it. This trend would continue and more and more people would end up using the internet.
In biology, the natural system works in a similar way. An environment is suitable for a group of animals to live in. Therefore, that group and any other animals would congregate to this area. These animals by themselves are the contribution to the environment. The forest or desert is now filled with a large number of animals. Each predator in this environment has prey to eat just like every user on the internet has knowledge to gain. The predators contribute to the environment by being there, diversifying the environment. With an open system like internet or forest, there would be those people who would abuse it. The virus writer and spammers would create problems on the internet. The human who abusively cut down all the trees without giving back the nutrients are similar to the virus writers and spammers. All of them create problems and make the environment a terrible place.
Another major similarity is the self organization of both the natural environment and internet. As the environment becomes too packed, the animals die naturally or they leave the area physically. As the population becomes too low, the available resources increases naturally and population returns to normal. These self regulating activities prevent the whole population from dying. The internet works similarly. As the number of virus writers increases, there would be more demand for protection software or firewall. With this demand for jobs, people would filled up these jobs and therefore fight the virus writers. The internet would become a safer place again.
How does network related to art?
The network and art have close connection. Network in any aspect is connections or relationships among many entities. If these entities were represented by an object and the connections be represented by a line, then the resulting graph would generate a picture of web. By using software to generate such behaviors or any continuous behaviors, there would be an art. For example, a software program that we saw in class on Monday shows many bubbles and lines among them. Each of the bubbles represents a website that people have visited and the line represents the connection of the websites. After the program has been executing for minutes or seconds, the resulting picture is a tree-like web. This picture can continue to grow as more websites are visited. Like any paintings in the world, this active picture is an art.
Spider Silk… or Carbon Nanotubes?
What really caught my interest this week was the mentioning of mass-producing spider silk from genetically modified goats. The idea has been around for quite some time, but I had no idea that people had actually already begun to bring it into action. Now there is a way to mass produce spider silk… but there will always be people who are against tampering with nature.
I came into UCLA with the hopes of exploring the uses and properties of carbon nanotubes, which by far surpasses the strength of spider silk and any steel that is thrown at it. However, these carbon nanotubes are not as elastic as spider silk, and thus the two will probably have different uses. Carbon nanotubes will probably go into the structure of small electronics up to even tanks, while spider silk will provide a great alternative to kevlar, medical suits, and other light-weight materials.
What if there were some way to integrate spider silk’s properties into carbon nanotubes? structurally, this would be impossible, but if we could somehow mesh the two together by a means not yet explored, i believe there would be a perfect product for practically any use. The material would not be too heavy, and yet have a strength at least 15x stronger than a high-density steel equivalent. the carbon nanotubes would have a stronger resistance against buckling under compression, and the spider silk would have a reinforced strength. This sounds like a perfect compromise to me. How this would be possible is beyond my current education level, but it would be something i would probably explore more in the future.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001388.html
you can wikipedia both also. spider silk and carbon nanotubes.
Week 4: Biology, Networks, Natural Systems and Artificial Life
Thoughts on social networking sites…
The first lecture this week caused me to think about the impact of modern technology around us. Specifically, it’s interesting to study the influence of social networking sites, such as Myspace and Facebook. On these sites, people are able to find out about happenings between others without actually being present. As an example, I instantly know what Melissa said to John last week when they were at dinner. This is a whole new concept in our world, and I’ve noticed the effect is a decrease in person to person social interaction. This outcome clearly originated much earlier when new forms of communication arose, such as the invention of the telephone, but social networking sites have suddenly intensified the effect. I believe that Facebook is very useful to remain in contact with friends and family that are far from us. It’s also beneficial time-wise (for example, Maria can respond to me when she has time). However, the negative aspect is its constant use for communication with people near us and as a form of “killing time”.
Should the GFP Bunny be considered a work of art?
The GFP Bunny, a genetically modified bunny that could glow green, was presented as art by Eduardo Kac in 2000. Our guest speaker supported his work of “art”, though it brought much criticism. I was not persuaded by the speaker; I disagree that the GFP Bunny is art.
The GFP Bunny was created by a scientist in a lab, and simply presented as art by Kac. This artist believed that since it was genetically modified (as opposed to a natural thing), taken out of its lab environment, and given a title, that it had a new meaning, and therefore was art. I don’t believe this is a valid way to create art. This “rule” gives everyone the title of an artist and is demeaning. For example, by placing a leaf on a pedestal in a room and calling it life, is this to say that I am now an artist? Like the GFP Bunny, Duchamp’s Fountain (a urinal) should not be considered art either.
An interesting observation: In contrast to the field of art, it seems that there is almost no controversy over what should be considered science. I think that such controversial aspects of art and its vulnerability to criticism are contributors to the gap between art and science.
Links:
If a urinal is art, can hammering it be, too?
AI- are we ready for it?
There was a lot of talk this week about robots and people trying to make robots more and more like humans.
Well, I suppose the fundamental question then is are we ready to be able to make another thing that can create something thats potencially better than us?
Various movies have come out to discuss this topic already, Matrix, AI, or even I Robot. They all, to some degree, potencially show how robots might one day dominate humans. Now even thought these movies are fiction they are based on some VERY reliable research that is being conducted. So the scary thing, is that someday they might become true?
As we continue to create and use machines in our everyday use, they become less and less reliant on the user and more self sufficient, without us really paying much attention to the evolutionary process of machines. I read newsweek and time magazine every once in a while and the things that some people are discovering seem unworldly. The idea of AI seems like a kid brother to the idea of nano-technology and the things that some scientists think they can do with it. I would be more scared of the little robots than the big ones if they were actually able to pull off what their talking about.
In the past, humans tend to be very self destructive, and eventually I believe that we’ll be using technology to either blow up the earth, kill eachother in some type bioengineered nontechnology weapon, or to create a machine with AI great enough to replace humans as teir 1 on the food chain. Either way, this kind of technology requires a huge amount of respect and discipline that the human race doesn’t have. Greed, fear and selfishness run rampant is every population and by putting something of this caliber into the mix, lets just say your not trying to bake cookies.
Maybe, by the time we finally achieve these technologic breakthroughs, humanity might be ready for them, but as the world is now; I don’t think were quiet ready for AI.
-Leo
Wk3: Thoughts on robots
on robots
Robots have always been very interesting to me. I’ve always liked science fiction so I suppose that makes sense. But real-life robots seem to get more fascinating on a daily basis. Robots have come a long way over the years, giving us the creepy Asimo and the scary unmanned military vehicles. Of course, more interesting still is what will come in the future. Asimo is one thing, but it would be quite another to have robots do things like run farms by themselves or something equally useful.
Though robots also scare the living hell out of me. Just a few days ago, a robotic canon killed 8 people in some kind of malfunction. But I suppose that’s how it goes. With any significant new technology, people die using it or because of it.
Blade runner brought up an interesting point and while I have yet to see the movie, it certainly made me think about a few things. In the movie, robotics has evolved to the point where androids are sentient beings. It’s very interesting to think about how society would deal with an increasing involvement of robots in our lives. I suppose one day humankind will one day have to deal with a blurred line between man and machine.
More on robots
Films like the Matrix and 2001 depict sentient robots as having a completely negative affect on humanity. In the Matrix, robots have enslaved all of humanity…and in 2001 a supercomputer manning a spaceship tries to murder its crew. Both not so positive about the whole smart robot thing. I have the hopeful vision that this isn’t how the future will be. Label me an optimist if you will, but I don’t really expect a Skynet or a society of robots using humans as fleshy batteries. I think the fundamental problem with these concepts of the future is that they don’t have the concept of gradual change. I’m not going to wake in the morning, turn on the news and hear about the nation of Asimo declaring its sovereignty (later called Asimostan, if you must know). In 100 years, I doubt it will be very strange to think of robots as companions, friends, whatever, just not as metallic evil doers who are going to do mean things to you because you are a silly bag of flesh. It just seems rather silly to think of future progress in technology and science from the present, rather than from the eyes of the societies that they exist in.
Week 3 Robotics
What is a common theme of robotics in TV or movies?
Evil, mass reproducing, out of control, scary, bent on destroying or assimilating everything seems to be an architectural ‘villain’ in TVs and even movies. A big example is Terminator. Humans create robots that eventually became smarter than humans. Such robots began to reproduce themselves and to annihilate human kind. Such a theme seems to be very common in many Sci-fi television shows. First, there is Star Trek with the cybernetic Borg whose catch phrases include “You shall be assimilated,” “Resistance is futile,” or “We shall adapt.” The Borg brings different species of life into its collective by assimilation, which means a cybernation of such species. Similar to the Borg, there are the Replicators of Stargate: SG1. The Replicators are at first spider looking machines that eat metals and technology with the purpose of creating more copies of itself. Eventually the Replicators eat enough technology to become human like. Both the Borg and the Replicators fit the evil robot profile, and there are more TV villains that fit it. Another example is the Cybermen, or Cyberwomen, of British Sci-fi show Doctor Who. Such robot villains are popular and will continue to be popular in Sci-fi shows. There will probably be more villains like them in the future.
Why is Frankenstein so diverse?
Growing up, I see a lot of different versions of Frankenstein. There is the childish version on some cartoon that is always grouped with a vampire, a werewolf, a mummy, and etc. There is the old fashion version as seen in the old black and white TV or movies. While talking about the black and white version, Frankenstein is either shown as a comedy or as a melodramatic horror. It is not until my junior year of high school that I had the opportunity to read the original Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I find it very surprising that in the book the name “Frankenstein” belongs exclusively to the doctor and his family and that Victor Frankenstein’s creation is just called the “Monster” or “Creature.” But then again, the story is pretty much from Victor’s point of view. On another note, the real creator of the Monster is actually quite the bachelor, unlike the old, white hair, grandfather like, devious scientist that he is often portrayed as in black and whites or cartoon. A reason for Frankenstein to be so varied would be that the book was published in 1818, which is almost 200 years ago. The character Frankenstein is now a part of history, and such subject matter is bound to get Disney-fied (meaning the original idea is the base for a new recreation) in order to make it suitable for the people of that particular generation. Frankenstein is a really interesting character.
Terminator – http://www.thewallpapers.org/movies/terminator3/Terminator%203%20T-800%20Attack.jpg
Borg – http://www.exitmundi.nl/borg3.jpg
Replicators – http://www.frontiermodels.co.uk/images/products/WRP0056.jpg
Frankenstein – http://www.uh.edu/engines/1831frankenstein.jpg
Week 3 – Robotic Art
Does science or art inspire robotic art?
Robotic art is a new genre of art that utilizes robots to create works of art based on random movements and indirect communication. There is a question of whether the artwork that results from this method is an artistic expression or a scientific feat. I felt that this subject related to the work of Nikola Tesla that we learned about this week. His scientific inventions utilized designs that were completely innovative during his time and his ideas about energy and communication changed technology forever. The inventions that he created were certainly scientific advancements, but they were also artistic creations. His goal was to create inventions that would advance technology, but the wonder and inspiration that he provided to others puts his work in a more artistic light.
Robotic art also reminded me of the Math Rock that we had the opportunity to listen to last week. One thing that stuck with me was a response that Mr. Yoshida had to the question of what meaning there was to his music. He answered that his music has no message and that he does not like meanings in songs. At first I thought that he could not be serious or that maybe it was too complicated to explain, but looking at robotic art this week made me think differently. The creators of these robots are making machines that are basically programmed to create original designs through mathematically random movements. There is no denying that the outcome is a work of art and that it is capable of evoking emotion from a person who views it. Does it really matter that the piece was created by a machine that has no sense of emotion and is not aware of any outside influences? Well, if the viewer has no knowledge of this, then it would have to mean that it does not. Just like when I listened to Math Rock, I had a sense that this music represented the angst of someone who was in a suppressed environment. It was not until afterwards that I learned the music had no meaning to the artist, but that did not change how I felt.
My opinion of whether robotic art is inspired by art or science is that it is actually inspired by both (how expected, I know). In this genre, the line between art and science is really non-existent. There is no way that the art that has been created can be completed without the technologically innovative designs of the artists who build the robots, but it has also been their imaginative ideas that allowed this art to even exist. The subsistence of science in other areas of art has been rapidly increasing recently and will continue to play a major role for many artists. The artistic bearing of this art should not be viewed as an interpretation of the process that an artist goes through, but as the unique perspective that it gives to those who view it.
Robotic Art
Robotic art newspaper article
Nikola Tesla Page
Biography of Nikola Tesla
Kinetic Art and Robotics
What is the appeal of kinetic art?
The ability to interact with a piece of art adds another dimension to its appeal. Rather than be limited to interpreting an immobile painting, which can still be interesting, kinetic art forces you to become a part of the exhibit. You’re not just using your sight; kinetic art combines the use of all the human senses. It promotes individual involvement, whether voluntary or not. Personally, I find it much more appealing, because it evokes a personal reaction in most cases. Sure, as in all kinds of art, there are pieces that I don’t find as interesting as others, but those same pieces may be the ones that evoke reactions in you. Thus the beauty of art; no two people will interpret a piece exactly the same. Suddenly, what could have originated as a simple idea, has evolved into a series of opinionated discussion and the sharing of ideas.
Where does robotics fit into the equation?
As we move into the future, what role will robotics take on? Will it have a heavy impact? In pop culture, we see robots in movies as intelligent experiments gone wrong. However, is this very likely? I do not think so. Now granted, these movies are supposed to be based in the future, but we all know how accurate future predictions can be. But it is my opinion that the impact of robotics, although wide-ranging, will be much more subtle. In fact, we use robotics in many daily activities. Automobile assembly, surgery, bomb disarmament…the applications are endless. The real question is how far can we take it? Will we get to the point where human-like robots walk among us without apparent detection? I cannot say, but I assume it’s possible. In our society, if there is a need, we fill it. All that is sure is that much will have changed by the time that kind of need is filled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_sculpture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8
http://www.kinetica-museum.org/
Week 3
Kinetic art is an art that has been around for awhile but now is evolving faster and faster. Most of the kinetic art that we see today is in robots. Robots are designed in various ways for a multitude of uses. Many people make robots to perform different tasks. For example, there was a television show where people would make robots to fight eachother. The survival of the robot would depend on the design of the robot. Robots can be designed in other ways.
Some robots are being designed to look like humans. There are many different aspects of art that go into a human like robot. First of all, it takes a lot of artistic abilities for someone to make a robot out of metal to look like a living being. Also, artisitic ability is required to make the robot act human like. The movements of humans is hard to replicate by a nonliving object but artists have to constantly work on getting robots to act and move like a living being.
Now the controversy is that if it takes art to make robots, can robots make art? I think that this question can be answered in two ways. Firstly, I believe that art has to come from one’s soul. Robots cannot accomplish this obviously because they have no soul. THe soul of a person is what makes art. For example, robots have been made that can play instruments. Although the robot is capable of making the sound, I do not believe that it is true music. Robots can’t put in the expression into music that is needed to make genuine music. On the other hand, I think that it is an art to make robots that can create some kind of art, if you can call it that. It is in art in itself to make a robot that can paint a picture or to perform some kind of music but I don’t believe that is a true piece of art.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0wDZI15tiR0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t39ZkWvDUWk
http://www.jeffbots.com/artists.html
http://www.lxxl.pt/artsbot/index.html
http://www.halo.gen.nz/robot/
Robotics
What impact did the Industrial Revolution have on art?
The Industrial Revolution had both a positive and negative influence on art. The emerging technologies gave artists new ways to express themselves, and artists could present their pieces to a wider audience because of mass production and ease of transportation. Artists also enjoyed a wider palette, centering paintings and drawings on the plight of assembly line workers, new technologies, and the shifting landscape. However, the ability to mass-produce art detracted from the originality of artwork. Hundreds of people could now purchase an esteemed piece of art for a meager amount and hang it in their homes. Artists could benefit from a paltry piece of art as long as they could cheaply produce and sell it; the prospect of wealth overshadowed the drive to create something completely new and beautiful.
What is the goal of kinetic art?
Kinetic art, art with moving parts, has progressed from simple sculptures (like Marcel Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel) to useful technologies like robots and artificial body parts. Watching the breathing lion model and running robot in class, there seems to be a common goal of modern kinetic art: to make machines mimic living things. The robot from Youtube that took the woman for a walk was a prime example. The fluidity of modern robots’ movements is simply amazing; it seems that soon we will be able to develop robots that are indistinguishable (at a glance) from their living counterparts. I can see advances in robotics proving useful in many aspects of life, especially with helping the disabled. Even today, people employ robotics to build fake arms and other appendages that make life easier for the disabled. Robots could even be used to interact with other people or animals, such as using a robot to imitate a parent animal in order to nurse younger animals.
http://www.jstor.org/view/0024094x/ap050019/05a00180/0
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brand/artist.html
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/robot1.htm
Robotics or Intelligence
After hearing about the prominent influence that robotics is supposed to have on our future I did some research on truly intelligent machines. While searching I found an article on “On Intelligence,” a book by Jeff Hawkins. Hawkins believes that the reasons for our failure in the area of robotics is because we are programming the machines to do specific things. Instead he thinks “that to actually make an intelligent computer, we simply need to teach it to find and use patterns, not to attempt any specific tasks.” I believe Hawkins is correct. Once we know more about the brain we should be able to structure a “robot” to learn. We should be able to construct something in such a way that the machine could actually learn as in movies such as “I, Robot.” In order to make sure that the robots won’t “take over the world” one could build restrictions on how much can be learned. Instead of programming software to take out our trash we could teach an intelligent machine to do many useful tasks instead of just a few. The only downside that I see tho this new technology would be an increased unemployment rate. The machines would be able to do work just as well as humans and problem solve around things. Big companies would only have to pay a one time fee for all the work they could imagine. Our lives could be changed forever, both positively and negatively.
As progress in neuroscience occur so will artificial intelligence. Jeff believes that in our brains we have memory-prediction framework located in our neocrotex that is associated with the thalamus and hypothalamus and that once we are able to clearly understand how this framework works we will be able to model intelligent life after it.
Although Hawkins ideas are a little out there, they could be like those of Tesla, just a little before there time. Tesla would not believe all of the technology that we have today, and one hundred years from now who knows, maybe we will be walking around not being able to tell the difference between a humanistic robot and a normal little girl. But one has to remember that this is only a prediction. Twenty years ago people believed that by now we would be flying around in cars and having robots do everything for us. Although this is not the case, we have made many advances and are on our way to producing intelligent life.
Could this be our future?
AI: Artificial __________?
Amidst the horror-filled dystopian predictions of robots turning against humans, and optimistic dreams of living in harmony with android friends, the term “artificial intelligence” gets thrown around approximately once every three sentences. However, for most of us, our conception of what this actually entails is somewhat flawed.
To begin with, intellect is generally understood as something’s capacity to learn, reason, and understand based on factual information. Learning has already been conquered; computers have long been able to store and recite information fed in from external sources. Reasoning has likewise been tamed, on a basic level at least; the simplest “IF/THEN/ELSE” statement provides for a simple conclusion based on given factual premises. Understanding is also falling under manmade dominion; the Kansei robot, for example, “reads” facial expressions and “understands” the emotions they convey. “Intelligence” per se is not, therefore, referring to actual intelligence, but rather to a higher degree of conscience or sentience.
This is where we tend to overreach. Humankind has long thought itself far superior to other animals based on our advanced mental capacity. It seems more reasonable to me for development of robot “minds” to focus first on autonomy in baser forms; that is, re-focus our obsession from Artificial Intelligence to Artificial Instinct. The ability to sense, perceive, and develop reaction to anything around them, even things outside their pre-programmed schematic, is that vital step between machines and those “robots” of the future.
On a somewhat tangential point, the ethical question would spring up around here somewhere; at the point where humans are creating autonomous individuals. More interestingly, and perhaps more importantly, would be the dilemma when we are actually on the cusp of creating actual sentience. Sure, these robots wouldn’t be “alive” by a scientific definition; yet if they could act on their own, think on their own, and behave for all intents and purposes like a living organism, then I don’t think ethics should be concerned about the physical makeup of its robotic innards. After all, the creation of certain types of robots would be technological eugenics; programming a robot is tampering with or creating its genetic code. In a time where stem cell research is so hotly debated, I find it interesting how the issue of robotic life is just about ignored.
Another interesting subject (sorry for jumping around) is what was brought up during discussion in regards to art and robots: is it art if it’s made by a machine? Before diving into this question, I’d like to say that, in my opinion, art and meaning exist in separate realms. A piece of art can have a particular meaning; a person can draw meaning out of art as well. Yet the absence of meaning doesn’t prohibit a piece from being artistic, if it is still aesthetically pleasing. The “perfect man” image, for example (http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=409), was computer-generated. Yet I can find artistic merit. Thus to return to the original question, I would say that yes, art created by robots is still art. However, I don’t think robots can confer a meaning in the art they create. It can be programmed to do something a particular way; however, any meaning is coming from the person programming, not the robot itself. And here we come full circle in my attempt to make this entry less scatterbrained: in my opinion, a robot will not be able to create something of its own, with a meaning or message that came not from a programmer but itself, until it has autonomy and sentience.
Now here’s some links to interesting robot stuff:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robots/remote-control-humans-193817.php
Week 3 – Robotics by Shih-Yao Nathan Hsu
What’s the influence of advanced technology on humanizing machineries?
As the technology advances, the machines from industrial age no longer possess the old, stereotypical looks, but rather, they are coated and beautified by humans. Robotics – machines possessing humanly appearance – is the product under such paradigm shift. “Technological advances double every eighteen months,” said Henry Wang, a computer sciences engineer in University of California at Riverside. Now, humans are able to create senses in machineries as well as building sophisticated AI – Artificial Intelligence – within the tiny chips inserted within the metal box. Not for long, the scientists and engineers will, coherently collaborating, shape these lifeless beings so-called robots into forms of us, perhaps undistinguishable with bare eyes.
What direction is Robotics heading?
It is scary even to imagine a man marrying a robot; however, as published in news on Chinese Yahoo! Website, Japanese and Korean scientists are endeavoring on combining machineries into a physical, humanly shell, though not as frightening as the story Frankenstein. “Perhaps in the year 2050,” commented by these scientists, “the technology within these robots, who are less whimsical and incomprehensible, will be advanced enough to replace the real women in for men, and vice versa.” Although it seems improbable to create highly realistic “Human machines”, some of the AI, as of now, are capable to beat the national champions in chess. The direction to which the technology and robotics are heading still appear unpredictable.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO
http://www.robotics.com/robots.html
http://www.roboticsonline.com/
http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/robots.html
Kinetic Art and Robotics
Kinetic Art is a perfect example of how art and technology have intertwined in this art/ science world of ours. In kinetic artwork, the art has movement or parts that are in motion. This movement is either defined by illusion, i.e., when an individual passes by the art work, or is mechanically powered. Eastern European artists Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner were the first individuals to experiment with this type of art. They were inspired by their fascination with technology. A more advanced form of kinetic art is robotics.
Robotics and a robot in itself is a form of art mixed with technology. Robots and the idea of having a machine emulate a living creature’s characteristics have been around for decades. The fact that robots are becoming more advanced as time passes is remarkable in itself in terms of art and technology. Now, the idea of a robot creating art; well that seems somewhat illogical.
Some robots, with the advancement of technology, now have the technology to create their own art. This sparks up many questions in my mind. Can a robot really replace a human artist? So is this actually considered art? Or is the robot in itself the art work? Can art create art? Personally, I do not believe that an art piece created by a robot should be considered art. The robot is not the artist; the creator of this robot is in fact that artist. Stating that this robot is the artist is basically saying that a printer is an artist. Robots are simply programmed to perform certain tasks, ordered by the individual who designs the machine. The machine merely reproduces artwork, as referenced to in Walter Benjamin’s essay. Although it has replaced many humans in the industrial world, throughout time, a machine can never replace a human being, in terms of artistic ability and creation of art work.
http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=5810
Mr. Tesla
I was very fascinated by the integration of the arts with machinery. I personally had the most fun watching clips of the matrix: revolution. However, this doesn’t mean that I wasn’t inspired to do further research on projects now inspired by Nikola Tesla.
As most people may already know, Tesla was famous for inventing the tesla coil, but he is less known for discovering the alternating current which is used greatly in today’s society. This was a great utilization of energy: rather than using a direct stream of energy and losing much in the process, Tesla was able to utilize approximately 95% of the energy to stream it from his source into its receivers. However, despite my interest in Tesla’s previous works, I will be talking about something else: an electric car.
Sure, the EV-1 was a breakthrough and a failure, but now hybrid cars are being produced left and right. However, what a lot of petroleum companies don’t want people to know about is Tesla Motors, a company that has produced a elise-like roadster that can travel up to 245 miles on a single charge. Since the car uses rechargable lithium ion batteries and has an electrical motor, there is less chance of engine failure and only requires two gears. The possibility of one gear could be explored further to optimize performance, but some rivaling companies decided to buy out their patent and is now holding onto it in secret. As of now, the car is being sold for 98 grand due to its limited availability and demand, but as people start to buy more, the cost will go down dramatically. As of now, I believe tesla motors is designing an all-electric sedan. more info about this can be found on www.teslamotors.com
www.teslamotors.com
http://www.braincourse.com/wirelessa.html
http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm
Week 3: Robots and Art
Will robots soon be as intelligent as humans?
In the 90’s, there seemed to have been a new type of craze over robots. Many new sci fi movies made during the era posed their own answers to the question: How intelligent will machines be in the future? Two of my favorites were Bicentennial Man (1999) and A.I. (2001). In Bicentennial Man, an android (played by Robin Williams!) is created to perform menial tasks in a household, but continues gaining knowledge and even experiences emotions. By questioning its identity, the android becomes a threat to its creator. Though the movie is very interesting, it is fiction, and will probably remain that way at least through our lifetimes.
Work on artificial intelligence began after WWII, becoming popular in the 1950’s. Now, scientists use computer technology to create artificial intelligence systems that can learn and make decisions almost as well as humans. Specifically, they are attempting to use microprocessors that function based on algorithmic patterns to mimic neuron activity. However, we have yet to be successful in the creation of an “electronic brain”.
How does art tie into robotics?
As I have mentioned before, I am a science major, and can easily see how advancements in science benefit society. It takes a little more brainwork to see it from the art side, but I do. If a humanlike robot were created in the future, it would not be very convincing if it did not look like a human. Therefore, it is necessary to have art skills for the outer design. For example, I can imagine that a robot would need artificial skin, hair, etc. To make these, an artist would have to search for efficient materials that appear realistic.
< Hiroshima Engineers Develop Robotic Carp (article)
~ an interesting article which also demonstrates the beauty of art in science
Links:
Making Robots Smarter (article)
Robotic Arts and Steroids
What is the controversy that surrounds robotic art?
Robot art, like any subset of art, arouses extremely different responses from different people. Some are enthralled by the implications of harnessing the power of robots to create stimulating art. Boosters of the scene say that by using robots, whose task typically involves nothing of creativity, to create art helps fuse the world of technology and science with the art world. Others, art purists among them, feel that adding a mechanical element to creating art takes away from its authenticity, or makes it less than “art.” Some might say that in a society such as ours in which technology and industry dominate our day to day lives, that art is one of the only escapes from the clutches of technology and thus shouldn’t be created through robotics. In a way, these people feel like art is one of the few things left in society that is truly human. Adding robots to the picture takes away from the humanity of it all.
How is this debate over robotic art similar to that of performance enhancing drugs?
This debate surrounding robotic art is very similar to that of the role of performance enhancing drugs in professional athletics. Supporters of the drugs feel that the athletes are there to entertain us, and that as entertainers they should be allowed to do whatever it takes to take their performances to the highest possible level. Detractors feel that steroids and other performance enhancers create an unfair advantage for players and that their use takes away from the idea of sport as competition. Furthermore, these people say that professional athletes who use performance enhancing substances are sending the message to kids that it is ok to cheat or to bend the rules. Although not nearly as much in the mainstream as the debate over drugs and sports, the controversy over robotic art has at its core the same conflict: what is the point at which innovation and technological advancement seizes to enhance something and begins to chip away at its purity?
Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_(sport)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/03/06/growth0313/
http://www.stcroixstudios.com/wilder/fastkarl/index.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldOfSport/idINIndia-30064020071019
Nikola Tesla and the Tesla Coil
Nikola Tesla, the inventor, physicist, mechanical engineer, and an electrical engineer, influenced our lives significantly by bringing the foundation of modern alternating current electric power (AC) system, and basis for other electronic devices such as wireless remote control. Amongst his inventions, is the Tesla Coil, a type of transformer. It transforms high current into high voltage.
Because it can generate discharges or currents of high voltage, the tesla coils are used in demonstrations, special effects, product safety testing. Also, because the discharges from the tesla coil resembles the lightning so much, it has been used by many science fiction entertainments such as computer games. An example would be The Tesla Coil in the game series Command & Conquer: Red Alert where the tesla coil is used to fire volts of electricity towards the enemy.
Some different uses of the tesla coil includes its ability to create music through proper control unit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1O2jcfOylU In this clip two tesla coils are connected to a laptop with a software that sends the tones that is played by the two tesla coils discharging.
One can even guess that the inventor Nikola Tesla himself must’ve been fascinated by his tesla coils from the fact that Tesla refused to hold conventions without his tesla coil blasting electricity throughout the room. Eventhough he was a reclusive individual, he had a great showmanship. In some sense, Nikola Tesla can be seen as a two culture man. He was a friend of Mark Twain, the writer. By other friends, Tesla was described as “a scientist or engineer who was also a poet, a philosopher, an appreciator of fine music, a linguist, and a connoisseur of food and drink.”
Links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1O2jcfOylU , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Tesla
