Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October 28, 2007
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
