Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
I just read a very interesting article with Berlin artist Timur Si Si-Qin on ArtSlant/Berlin: http://www.artslant.com/ber/artists/rackroom/168422
He believes that an evolutionary, science-based perspective will come to dominate art theory within the next 20 years.
Since what Si-Qin later in the article refers to as a "way out of post-modernity," all of this is somewhat superficial to me because it is new, because I have not read at length about what he speaks, or about Manuel De Landa or Brian Boyd. I personally find all of this much more approachable as philosophy than I do as art itself, finding myself more and more to be more of a romanticist or neo-romanticist as far as consumer products as art or as diamond encrusted skulls ala Hirst. I also find many analogies in art theory and media theory in general and would be most interested to see what, if anything, the members of this site have to say. Cheers, Mark
What Timur says is true. Art will certainly take the science route to evolve and flourish in the future. Pioneers like Dr. Krishna ( in the Indian scene ) will go down in the history as people who dared to swim against the tide and succeeded.
Diamond encrusted skulls are not that "scientific" . Damien Hirst can do such sensational works. You got to get deeply involved with science to get the tag of a sci-artist.
Yes, sir, I agree, you are correct. I did not mean to suggest that Hirst's work was "scientific." In an attempt to be brief, in a sentence I was mixing analogies of work using consumer products and works such as Hirst's. Please excuse.
An interesting article that reflects the modern trend: The New Modernism: Blending Science, Engineering, Art, and Human Imagination
science is systematic knowledge the experience is beyond neural activity it includes perception,intuation,imagination
All Art is experience and has place above scientific information and can not be caged in scientific definations which is an iota of totality