SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

One thing that perplexes me in the art world is the " CARBON COPY STUFF". I get several invitations for art shows both on & off line. When I go to see the contemporary work, most of the time I get to see about 40 to 50 works which are just like carbon copies of one another. If I see one, I need not see the others. ( I too tried some carbon copying but couldn't go beyond three paintings. ) I wonder why today's artists do this. Leonardo da Vinci did one Mona Lisa & one Last Supper. Vincent van Gogh painted only one each of Irises & Sunflowers. That is why these paintings became famous. Had da Vinci created a sitting Monalisa, a standing Monalisa, a sleeping Monalisa, a running Monalisa, a jumping Monalisa, a thumping Monalisa, a talking Monalisa, an eating Monalisa, a drinking Monalisa, a fighting Monalisa, a crying Monalisa, a screaming Monalisa, a coughing Monalisa, a sneezing Monalisa, a teasing Monalisa, a dancing Monalisa, a laughing Monalisa, a playing Monalisa, a cooking Monalisa, a cleaning Monalisa, a flying Monalisa, a painting Monalisa, ----phew----would they have become famous? da Vinci was smart enough to create only a smiling Mona Lisa.
Too bad the masters didn't leave any themes for us to work on. They had touched all the spots on earth & skies the brush could reach. So we don't have any ideas left. All that we can do is repaint the ideas over & over again. No wonder now we have more of quantity & less of quality.
But if we try to think & search, I am sure we will find some new themes too.
I am a bit selfish like the old masters- trying to consume most of the themes that are available in science. I am lucky to have arrived here early from my field. Scientist-artists who come after me can only reprint my ideas! Sorry guys.

Views: 97

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Dr. Krishna
When you write of the "carbon copy" stuff, I think you have to be more specific as to what kind of work you are talking about. Do you mean artists who copy other artists work, or who copy their ideas? There is a whole school of modern art, with artists who "appropriate" images or work of artists as part of their work. Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine are examples. Warhol imitated objects in the beginning. I am not saying it is good or right. I can not understand the fame of some of these artists. There are other scientists artists by the way. Richard Cray, who developed the first supercomputers was a committed artist.
here is one Marta de Menezes--http://martademenezes.com/
here is page from the web
Artists and Biology Research
Stephen Wilson, Art Department, San Francisco State University

Science and Technology dominate contemporary world.
What is an appropriate response for the arts?

* Consumers of new tools - using them to create images, sounds etc
* Critical commentary from the distance
* Artists as researchers - independent research agendas, inquiries, development of technology
I have a book of a woman artist in boston who works with scientists to create art from slides , cultures etc
Frank

Topics of Presentation

* Explore artist as researcher approach as it pertains specifically to biology
* Explore why artists should be interested in biology/ importance of biology in future
* Survey a few bioart projects from this perspective
* Consider two of my own installations, Protozoa Games & IntroSpection
* Enhance understanding of how exactly artists might contribute to research.
* Review the challenges of opportunities of artists functioning as researchers


Based on Research from my book Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technolo
Thanks for the reply, Frank. Glad you raised a few QS. This shows your in depth knowledge & interest in the topic.
And I feel happy to discuss these things with people like you. I think I explained what carbon copy stuff is. I am not talking about artists who copy others' ideas. I am talking about the artists who choose one subject, let us say, Mona Lisa ,& like I described they do a series of art work - like sitting Mona Lisa, standing Mona Lisa, laughing Mona Lisa etc. etc. on that subject. Each art work looks like a carbon copy of the other. I have seen this trend in shows here both on line as well as off line.
I know there are some scientists who are artists too & I have friends in the scientific field who are artists like
Julie Newdoll, Andy Giger, Dr. Promod Rai, Elisabeth F. & Jean Constant.
How can we forget people like da Vinci who preceded us several centuries before? If you see in the groups section Pierre told us about a scientist artist whose work was auctioned some time back.
I have seen the art works of several people in the scientific world on internet. They painted microbes, cells, nebula, cell divisions & other stuff that we see in science text books. They tried to put artistic twist to scientific figures & theories mostly in the form of digital art.
But show me the work of anyone who has painted like me by taking themes from science as their subject. I have searched the internet but couldn't find any- atleast when I started. I hit a wall when I tried to search for such people. If you find any please let me know. I would be very grateful to you for showing a person who thinks like me.
Krishna
I think many of the illustrations in Scientific American qualify as art. I know an artist that is very good, Paul Lafolley who does scientific based paintings
I know that there are others
about lafolley on wikipedia
Major works

* The Cosmos Falls into the Chaos as Shakti Urborosi: The Elimination of Value Systems by Spectrum Analysis(1965)
* Utopia: The Suspension between the Possible and the Impossible (1973)
* Get Thee Behind Me, Satan (1974-1983)
* Temporality: The Great Within of the Universe (1974)
* Black-White Hole: the Force of the History of the Universe to Produce Total Non-Existence(1976)
* The Orgone Motor (1982)
* Color Breathing (1983)
* Thanaton III: Extraterrestrial Communication Portal (1989)
* Geochronmechane: The Time Machine from the Earth (1990)
* It Came From Beneath Space: Lucid Dream Number 52 (1991)
* The Alchemy of Breathing (1992)
* The Fetal Dream of Life into Death (2001-02)
* After Gaudi: A Grand Hotel for New York City (2002)
* Pickman's Mephitic Models (2004)
* The Physically Alive Structured Environment: The Bauharoque (2004)
* Cosmogenesis To Christogenesis (2005)

[edit] Books and monographs

* Laffoley, P. (1989). Paul Laffoley: The Phenomenology of Revelation. Boston: Kent Fine Art.
* Laffoley, P. (1999). Architectonic Thought Forms: a Survey of the Art of Paul Laffoley 1967-1999. Austin, TX: Austin Museum of Fine Art.
I think I will buy one of his books. he is very good
but I know there are others
I think we can do research on this topic.
Krishna
All scientists are basically artists as they have to draw figures to explain their scientific theories. I feel there is science in art & art in science.
Krishna

Frank Shifreen said:
I think many of the illustrations in Scientific American qualify as art. I know an artist that is very good, Paul Lafolley who does scientific based paintings
I know that there are others
about lafooley on wikipedia
Major works

* The Cosmos Falls into the Chaos as Shakti Urborosi: The Elimination of Value Systems by Spectrum Analysis(1965)
* Utopia: The Suspension between the Possible and the Impossible (1973)
* Get Thee Behind Me, Satan (1974-1983)
* Temporality: The Great Within of the Universe (1974)
* Black-White Hole: the Force of the History of the Universe to Produce Total Non-Existence(1976)
* The Orgone Motor (1982)
* Color Breathing (1983)
* Thanaton III: Extraterrestrial Communication Portal (1989)
* Geochronmechane: The Time Machine from the Earth (1990)
* It Came From Beneath Space: Lucid Dream Number 52 (1991)
* The Alchemy of Breathing (1992)
* The Fetal Dream of Life into Death (2001-02)
* After Gaudi: A Grand Hotel for New York City (2002)
* Pickman's Mephitic Models (2004)
* The Physically Alive Structured Environment: The Bauharoque (2004)
* Cosmogenesis To Christogenesis (2005)

[edit] Books and monographs

* Laffoley, P. (1989). Paul Laffoley: The Phenomenology of Revelation. Boston: Kent Fine Art.
* Laffoley, P. (1999). Architectonic Thought Forms: a Survey of the Art of Paul Laffoley 1967-1999. Austin, TX: Austin Museum of Fine Art.
I think I will buy one of his books. he is very good
but I know there are others
Thanks for the reply, Surabhi. " Carbon Copy Stuff " is producing several paintings of the same theme. Like sitting Monalisa, standing Monalisa, sleeping Monalisa etc. etc. This is not like copying other people's work.
Krishna

Surabhi said:
As long as the people who try to reproduce a masterpiece work in order to get a hang of the techniques of Fine Arts, it is good. Just a few centuries ago, almost all of fine artists studied to copy his master’s paintings. But today very few artist do this. Because they are in a hurry to create their own original styles. A masterpiece can be from fine art to designer art. It can include any art era such as pop art or impressionism etc. The bad thing that happens is that artists try to copy a master's work put in some style of their own but claim it to be theirs.
Well its a personal opinion.
I have been looking for Oneness... Bridging Heaven and Earth and Love .... art works
and can never see one master who could do that...
and i think that is why ....i can never say our ideas are runnign out
where there is a will,there is always a way out
But the most beautiful art works are painted in our hearts where only those who have hearts to see are able to see and they can never be copied :)
In gratitude
I am theonesoul

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service