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
|
