Oron Re: Let me pose it quite bluntly; in the service of WHAT art operates? big topic During our recent Art and Darwin conference one of the topics that came up is whether the 'aesthetic' experience ( which we can define tautologically as what person does when confronted with a work of art) is separable as a neurobiological category ( in the same was a the experience of hunger can be isolated say)= and within this whether the aesthetic experience with a non human made object ( a sunset) is neorobiologically different from the neurobiological response to a human made object - i think the answer was "perhaps", in the sense that the viewer projects onto human made objects other types of interpretations that use other parts of the brain= i dont want to go too far down this road of reductionism anyway one of the points that JP Changeux made several times during the conference is that the brain is not a input-output system , not an information processing system. rather the brain spends almost all its time projecting ( telling stories ?) and then when tries to make sensory data coherent with the projection ( this is a threatening person/ this is a friendly person etc)= i kind of liked this idea of a brain basically as a dreaming machine that occasionally has to eat, avoid danger etc artefacts are then concretisations of the brains projections = and artefact making is not a unique attribute of humans ( hollis taylor was at the conference with her work with birds who create elaborate colored artefacts, lestel talked about knot tying chimps, )= these artefacts are stable parts of the world outside the body that help the brain build coherent predictive stories about the world i think the utilitarian/non utilitarian argument is a sidetrack= the human animal has evolved over millions of years , and art making is part of what has allowed humans to survive- this was changeux's optimistic view which gets me back to art-science collaborations as part of what we need to do to change our culture into a sustainable society= evolutionary processes will happily select the surviving life forms then to melinda's post re the curatorship issue of where art-science work should/can be shown= i very much agree with the strategy you are proposing of moving this kind of work into public arenas = though its really difficult (much public art has as little impact as the gallery exhibitions you mention) how does one create work that is publically "appropriated" and also has the type of content/context that artists working with complex scientific topics ( oron also refers to this issue of how to get to the simple core oron states: I am currently immersed in an ecological project and one thing that is become more and more apparent to me is the immense complexity of dealing with the issue, any action I postulate raises possibilities of good and harm to different aspects of that ecology, and this is without even considering the unknown unknowns (to quote Rumsfeld). My challenge as an artist is to tell the stories of these complexities but not to solve them." yup yup finally simon- i really like stuart kauffman's latest book " re inventing the sacred" but he lost me in the last chapter ! roger ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Melinda Rackham <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] overcoming token science and the new media ghetto To: [log in to unmask] hey Roger and list! for me the first approach has always been moving this sort of work into the public arena- working in hospitals, research labs, engineering, astrophysics, dance, nano tech etc, city wide festivals that hold free events attended by diverse publics. when i was at ANAT initially planning the Superhuman events, the driving concept of the Curatorial Masterclass was to engage with and educate mainstream arts curators and writers so that this work easily slipps into the public consciousness, becomes part of common experience and s an expected/respected form of cultural engagement. but in hindsight i wonder does "art", passively sitting in major public gallery contexts, have any immediate lasting impact - i'm planning to go to the copenhagen climate change shows in december - how many world decision makers went to openings, sipped wine, had an awakening experience that challenged them to rethink their perspectives? or does the exposure to new perspectives subtlety wash away at a lower level, building to a momentum in society as a whole? does work that is scientifically rigorous always make the best art? climate change may hit a fashionable peak, but will curators and institutions desert it when the next wave of popularity comes along? currently i'm working on a project which is giving me a new understanding the importance of moving art~science into small communities where it is not just an elitist concept, but actually provides practical applications which enhance everyday life and address everyday issues - The Avoca Project in regional Victoria, provides an accessible interface on an intimate, domestic and community level, as well as to an art audience in a place that is profoundly affected by climate change issues.. this project is set up to evolve over 10 years and slowly builds new potentialities and practicalities involving many fields of art, technology, science and academic collaborative research. http://www.avocaproject.org/ http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=184126442570 many things planned... money to be sought :) looking fwd to seeing many of you in Melbourne! warm regards, Melinda Melinda Rackham (PhD) Emerging Artforms Curator Adjunct Professor of RMIT University a P.O. Box 1109 North Adelaide South Australia 5006 e [log in to unmask] m +61 410 596 592 h +61 8 7127 5037 On 04/11/2009, at 5:21 AM, roger malina wrote: >> > the ideas that we have about the world are very tied to our brain > structures, > cognitive capacities, the language structures (such as ontologies) that we > project on the world= so the historical development of scientific > explanations > is one that reflects our cultural embedness > > i also think the art vs science debate is sterile at this point- as someone > pointed out - when dealing with an urgent problem like climate change and > how to change our societies so that we will survive, its all hands on deck, > art and science together > > an interesting question for the curators on this list is what is really the > best way to present art-science and science-art to interested publics ? > > the dublin gallery is one new type of model of an art gallery within a > science institution ( UCLA also has a gallery within the nano science > institute > ZKM for a while has a scientific research team within a cultural > insitution) > > should we be showing art-science and science-art within the new media > ghetto > that is trying to get accredited by the commercial/museum/academic world or > do > we need new ideas of how art-science and science=art projects should be > presented to new publics, in what contexts, how > > > > roger malina > -- Roger Malina is in France at this time IN USA phone 1 510 853 2007 When in France I can be reached at: 011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26 or (0) 6 80 45 94 47