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

Strange encounters on the grounds of third culture

I always wondered what will happen when scientists and artists come together in collaborative projects. Can they understand each other's language properly? Will there be misunderstandings?
Several of my questions are being answered now because of science-art collaborative forums.
Recently on an online scientist-artist collaborative group, an interesting interaction happened. There were one or two scientists and there were several artists. Of course I was there as a representative of both the fields and funnily forced to act as an interpreter and ambassador!
And this is the jist of conversation between people representing various fields:

Part: i

The funny story of scientists, a few artists and a scientist-artist interpreter!

Artist 1 : Why art? Perhaps art making is a way to develop the self. Isn't DNA changeable? If so, then art may be a way to program DNA. And because art is a language comfortable with complexity, it is very well suited to finding new patterns. If Gregory Bateson's statement is true, that noise is the only source of new patterns, art making is the way to enter the domain of 'noise' and searches for patterns. That's what I like about art, the process more than the product.

Scientist 1: Genomic DNA changes, of course, but we cannot make full use of the genome until we understand it's mechanisms. Sequence patterns in genomic change are as beautiful as any pattern in nature. Patterns are everywhere, including noise the same as harmony. I'm not familiar with Bateson, but it sounds like he was trying to make a point. If we put our heads together, do you think Bateman believes we will go on forever without ever finding a pattern completely unrelated to noise?

Artist 2: Is genetic engineering a threat to birth of art oriented individuals? what is intent of genetic engineering and are their ethical components to this science? Will scientists (mad-haha) try to create the superior human organism devoid of annoying artistic tendencies and only create high caliber scientists/engineers/politicians ?

Artist 3: Art changing DNA? Errrrrrrr.... that seems a bit difficult for me to grasp..... Evolutionary value doesn't have to be quite that direct I don't think. "The miracle of your mind is that you can see the world as it *isn't" Kathryn Schulz .
Here's what I've read there is proof for- Practitioners of the Arts (I'm talking Music, Visual, Literary- all Arts) alter their brains with constant practice. That's not limited to Artists- what ever any of us do on a continual basis shapes the way our brains work. On a basic level MRIs reveal that the act of drawing involves rapid firing of *both* sides of the brain. Geiger's data from testing dyslexics shows an abnormally extended peripheral vision *and* an improvement in reading ability when new hand/eye coordination tasks are learned. Children draw symbols for things before they try to realistically depict objects.
This suggests we live in the Abstract before we live in Real. Why? (There must be a Grant in that question somewhere....)
Scientist 1: you're way over my head, with the exception of course that process rules! That's unanimous with artist 1but would we agree that this discussion itself could be pre-process or process, either one?
Artist 3, here is an example of two people typing different languages. Abstract and real are not thought of in psychiatry in the way you describe and I just do not see it making sense in any way. So that's one noteworthy point. Another is that you're entirely over my head with the metaphysical. It's hard for me to even converse about that, because that kind of thinking is foreign to me at this point. That's why I say different languages. In science, you have to be careful of things like MRI studies you reference. They're not reliable papers, so you steer clear of them.
I try to keep an open mind and embrace what I don't know. I imagine that what I don't know will be more magnificent still, and the passion comes from there. Does that ring a bell for anyone? So in this case, artist 3, I believe you made false assumptions that got in the way of your own problem-solving, which of course we all do from time to time.
DNA is very good at what it does. Somatic mosaicism, conceptualized in the 1950s by Nobel Laureate Barbra McLintock, may in fact be occurring within each individual brain cell independently during new brain cell formation. If this were the case, first of all, we'd find out that our brains are a lot more like corn than we originally thought. But not only that, we do in fact know that formation of new brain cells is influenced by environmental factors, doing art almost certainly among them, and all the while this process is entirely programmed genetically. This kind of imagery I wish I had the talent to visualize for others. New concepts can be conveyed in ways that don't require scientific rigor, and ambiguity can be positioned at just the right places for future direction.
Abstract, real...maybe I can understand if you explain it more, artist 3 . I don't get it

Me - Krishna: DNA changes are not that easy and instant in the natural world unless chemicals and radiation are involved. Just because you create art, will it change your DNA and make you a different person genetically and these changes will be inherited by your children? I am afraid that doesn't happen so easily, artist 1!
However, when you are thinking about new things in your creative processes, new connections will be formed in your brain cells like in any other new work a person is doing ( Making new cell connections is different from DNA changes!) It is not limited to art. That is why neuro-scientists ask us to keep our brains in an active state always. I can interpret your reply in that sense, artist 3.
Having said that I want to add if you try to do several things at a time, like multi-tasking, brains of several people can't cope with it and they will keep forgetting things and make mistakes! This is my experience too! Yes, creativity helps in several other things, including science. But it should not become a burden on brain's capability in case of multi-taskers.
Scientist,hello again, artist 3 is talking in terms of art. Abstractions may be formed "by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon" like the abstract art. Here you will get a vague idea but not like the real thing when you see something like drawing of a man that somewhat looks like a human being but not exactly a picture of him. Real is exactly what you see and observe things in our real world. Like painting a picture just like the person is - sometimes like a photo - photorealism?! Am I right artist 3?

Artist 3: Dr. Challa, Yes, you have interpreted my ramblings quite well, and thank you.

Scientist 1: Artist 3, Thank you for engaging in an intellectually oriented cross-disciplinary discussion. I appreciated many of your points. The way you presented abstract and real sounded metaphysical to me because I thought it implied manifestation. That's why I was asking for clarification, which Dr. Challa provided, with her usual insight and humility. You and I seem to both sense a language barrier, but "Attack of the corn brain. Ouch."? C'mon, let's just leave it at that ok?

Part ii

Of generalizations, impatience and non- understanding of facts

Artist 2: -Science takes apart the pieces(or chips away as if to sculpt) to understand the components
-Art takes the components to build a final piece(modeling)...Or builds a final piece out of elements that are solidified to make components(assembly painting).
-Math and Art join smaller elements together to form a union (Venn diagram/ formula)
to make a larger piece with more comprehension to the viewer or to aid in understanding of a concept due to its completion.
-Science and sculpture take away from the whole to make a final analysis or re-represent the whole by a reduction.
Science reduces an entire object down to its most basic elements to understand the entire object in more clarity and in order to build alternative means to accomplish the same results by modification of its smallest elements.

Scientist 2: That is what you artists understand! Superficial stuff!!

Me - Krishna:

To categorize anything and label it helps us organize things in a better manner. Let us imagine a room full of books and newspapers on various topics dumped on one another like rubbish in a dust bin. If you want to consult an art book, imagine how much time it will take to search for it from the heap of books. If you categorize books , label them and keep them in an alphabetical order, it would save both time and energy. Even a child knows this. Science wants to make things easy for you. If you want to live in an disorderly world that is okay with us. why blame science for putting some wise advise into your head?

Science never asks you to spoil the environment. It tells you, what is what and what you should or shouldn't do. If you cannot utilize the knowledge properly and blame science for all the ills, it is like a bad worker blaming his tools for the mishaps that he causes!

Making anything into pieces or several parts and studying it is part of simplifying things which science endorses.. Sometimes it would be better if you study things in separate parts, try to analyse each part's importance individually, then combine them to understand the whole process. It is simplifying things! Can you understand the whole process of a system at a time without understanding the role played by each part separately? It confuses people more! That is making simple process complex!

Artist 2: Thank you Dr. Krishna, for explaining. I sure didn't go that deeply.

Part iii

Prejudices, closed minds and misconceptions

You can read all about it here : http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/can-one-swallow-make-a-summer

Part iv

Misinterpretations, strange imaginations and disputes

Artist 4: I think the general direction of the discussion has already flowed past the observations I'm going to make:
1) epigenetics - that is, environment (in its literal and wider senses) altering DNA (via RNA). There is evidence that a wide variety of factors, including one's emotional environment effects DNA - disputed of course as with all things, but it's an ongoing and current thesis. Art practice and participating in culture therefore may well effect DNA.
2) there are a number of ways of 'interpreting' evolutionary theory. One is to focus on the individual maximising their gene transfer (leading to ideas like 'the selfish gene') and the other is to focus on how populations maximise survival of the next generation. Art/culture clearly has its part to play in the latter where art/culture is valued by a population - an idea current within (some parts of) archaeology
3) There are arguments current within the history and philosophy of science, as well as in anthropology and sociology, that neuro-imaging is little more than latter-day phrenology with all the criticism of dubious pseudo-science that goes along with that observation.
-how's that for cats among pigeons?

Me, Krishna, Artist 4, I understood what you are talking about. "Environmental factors" in epigenetics that can effect temporary (inheritable for a few generations) genetic changes are usually issues like food, chemicals, pollution, radiation exposure, temperature, parental age and of course things like stress that can have direct affect on metabolic processes of an individual ( the effect of emotions is disputed according to recent studies). But art and culture??!! Never heard about it ( but there is a chance - if in your culture you are using chemicals during undertaking cultural processes like people in India use harmful chemicals during Holi celebrations and if you are using toxic chemicals or pigments to paint) Can you give any specific examples and provide proof? Your interpretation is very imaginative -- made me smile -- but doesn't have solid base. The things I mentioned as environmental factors come into direct contact or have direct impact on the Biological mechanisms. Art is more involved with the thought process ( again the argument that positive and negative thought processes have impact on Biology of a person is disputed in a recent study) and therefore doesn't have "direct environmental effect" on genes.
A gene that contributes to an individual animal behaving differently becomes the gene for its distinctive behaviour is rubbish. Dawkins is not the only person that falls into this trap. In the 1970s many spoke of a gene coding for physical and behavioural characteristics. Also a gene must be compared with another for the same trait. It is not an entity that stands alone in its own right. As J. B. S. Haldane correctly pointed out, genetics is the science of differences not similarities. Quite simply, you and I can both be selfish—the differences between us cannot. You cannot apply personal characteristics to a comparison. In his book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins jumps back and forth from one definition to the other, claiming that they are interchangeable—which they are not. The result has been to encourage biological determinism. A whole generation of scientists are brought up on this confusion.
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it. Genes are not "selfish" in the human sense!
The term "selfish gene" was coined (by Dawkins) as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group. From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene. An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness - the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionary stable strategy.
'Selfish'? Selfish is actually a distracting term ( Dawkins himself said that!). In spite of the repeated cautions that he himself does not believe genes have motives, the framing metaphors caught the imagination of the world especially that of non-scientists.
Like several other scientists I too don't think genes are selfish like human beings.

Your argument that " neuro-imaging is little more than latter-day phrenology with all the criticism of dubious pseudo-science that goes along with that observation. How is that for cats among pigeons? " - and other interpretations didn't send a real cat - it is just a paper cat - they put smile on my lips because I heard and read these several times before. Dr.X, are you listening? As a neuro-scientist, you will be in a good position to answer the last question. So over to you....

Part v

Effect of wrong stories read and not reading the scientists' words properly

Artist x: I have worked, talked and collaborated with many very accomplished scientists and researchers. I find it almost universal that the more accomplished the scientist the quicker they are to acknowledge the critical role of intuition and unintended discoveries(mistakes). Scientists running multimillion dollar research projects refer to their work with humor and clarity about how little is understood and how subjective is the definition of success. Outside of the arts success maybe considered simply ones opinion. I am always amazed at the level of consensus among artists I know and respect. "Unraveling the mysteries of nature to help the world"... sounds like art to me.

Artist y: My experience of working with scientists is similar to that expressed by Artist x. Intuitive understanding, juxtaposition of apparently unrelated information, sudden hunches, serendipity all of the above were present. I do suspect that despite our differences we are all in this together. The idea of scientists doggedly following rules does not correspond with my experience of the species! We may be using a different language or even a different sort of language.

Me, Krishna: I acknowledge some scientists take the help of "intuition" but that is considered as "bad science". If you do your work with trial and error method sometimes you hit your target out of sheer coincidence. Even a child can do that. What is the big deal? Earlier scientists treaded this path. If you say today's well established scientists you know use this method, I am sorry to say you are in bad company of people who don't use their brain power properly and are still residing in medieval times. " I find it almost universal that the more accomplished the scientist the quicker they are to acknowledge the critical role of intuition and unintended discoveries(mistakes)" - "Universal"? "Critical role" ? Lady provide proof and substantiate your arguments as you are using big words.
Before the rise of modern science we had only our folk intuitions to guide us. Most of the work based on intuitions you mentioned occurred in earlier centuries and not in today's world. Intuition based sacience steadily declined since the rise of modern science. Yes, in the absence of equipment to deal with complexities of the universe some scientists take the help of "folk stories"( scientists gave intuition this name) - but they are just that - stories - not solid science. All medieval theories of science took the help of intuition. Most of the prestigious present day scientific journals say "People have plenty of intuitions, but they’re usually wrong".
Give me the names of the well accomplished scientists who say intuition is "critical to scientific research", I will show him/her how unscientific, backword-thinking and dumb s/he is.

Reasoning and rationale is what majority of scientists follow today and the field of science agrees this is the right method. Intuition based science is considered as pseudo-science in today's world.
Again intuition is the perception via the unconscious and at that level your brain will be still working without the active knowledge of the person. It is my own experience that after thinking about a problem late into the night, I fall asleep and then as soon as I get up with the same thoughts next morning, suddenly the possible solution strikes. That is not intuition. It is the culmination of your thoughts at subconscious level - which leads to conscious solutions.
There are dangers if you take the help of "intuition" .There are specific medical cases when doctors went with intuition or the common treatment option, which in the end, turned out to be more harmful than good for the patients involved. Of course this was only discovered after additional scientific research had been done to quantitatively prove that the doctors' intuition and/or common practice had been wrong. Intuition is a very poor guide to the world. Modern day science doesn't accept such practices although some black sheep of science still follow it.
If you selectively choose to give bad and old examples of science and say they are universal rules of science to supplement your argument, I am sorry to say your argument doesn't have solid stuff in it.

Artist X: I encounter the, "art practice as a kind of therapeutic escape", every time I enter a new lab. I can see the thoughts behind many faces, "Why are they letting her in here? This is a science lab." I have yet to leave a residency without those same faces asking me to return. It is through working side by side that it is clear I bring to my field the same intensity and intelligence that scientists bring to their research.

I think forums are a very interesting way of expanding our understanding and gaining insight from one another. But, this type of communication often leads to misunderstandings. My definition of intuition is subconscious thought leading to conscious solutions, so let us tread lightly. I think it is important that we all give each other the benefit of the doubt in order that discussions move forward fruitfully.

(I see here a try to escape with clever interpretation of words!- Krishna)

Part vi

Misconceptions again about science:

I feel there is a misconception about science that it cannot be deep and spiritual like art.

Artist X said : The principles of space, balance, scale/proportion, contrast, rhythm, unity/variety, emphasis (and others, depending on the discipline) are realized and communicated through the arts in ways they may not be through science. Art is as much a part of our survival instincts as our drives for sex, security, shelter, food, and acceptance. While science seeks knowledge through intellect to answer our most basic needs, art seeks meaning beyond survival... it defines the human experience, it documents the evolution of mankind, it enhances our awareness of time and place, and it explores new ways to communicate ideas.

The moral imperative(s)? Self-awareness, communication, relationships and re-creation to name but a few...

And artist Y said, " agreed".

My reply - Dr. Krishna: But sorry, I disagree with you both. SCIENCE CAN GO MUCH BEYOND WHAT YOU THINK IT CAN and in a better way. Please read this article written by me to know how:
http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/science-and-spir...

Artist Y said: "I wouldn't waste time on DNA if it didn't show me the essence of beauty as something powerful and pre-determined."

Dr. Krishna - my reply: Genes influence several things in an aesthetic sense. If you really have "eyes" to see it and "a specific mind" to realize it, the genetic material is responsible for all the splendour and variety and beauty of evolution. Genes are responsible for colours, shapes, sizes, behaviour of living beings and everything that you call "beauty"! If you say they don't, it means you see only a partial picture of Nature and not full picture to understand it. You can read about how even identical twins differ in certain ways because of epigenetics here: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

Dr. S,( a scientist), you are right. There is art created from DNA.http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/science-and-spir... Genes influence several things in an aesthetic sense.If you really have "eyes" to see it and "a specific mind" to realize it, the genetic material is responsible for all the splendour and variety and beauty of evolution. Genes are responsible for colours, shapes, sizes, behaviour of living beings and everything that you call "beauty"! If you say they don't, it means you see only a partial picture of Nature and not full picture to understand it. You can read about how even identical twins differ in certain ways because of epigenetics here: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/ Dr. Avi, you are right. There is art created from DNA. You will be happy to know that music from DNA is being written! You can read about and listen it here: http://www.yourdnasong.com/ You can also have them create music specific to your own DNA! Ms. Childs you said art and science are cousins. Yes, they are. People like Mr. Robb think they are similar. Yes, they are but only at a basic level. There are several differences too when you go to higher levels which make them the special fields they are. You can read the article I wrote on this here: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/differences-between-art-and-science"> I used the double helix of DNA in several of my works. You will be happy to know that music from DNA is being written! You can read about and listen it here: http://www.yourdnasong.com/ You can also have them create music specific to your own DNA!

Artist Y, you said art and science are cousins. Yes, they are. People like artist X think they are similar. Yes, they are but only at a basic level. There are several differences too when you go to higher levels which make them the special fields they are. You can read the article I wrote on this here: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/differences-between-art-and-science

Artist X: Your passion for defending science is a wonderful example of just how emotional scientists can be. Would it be fair to say you place more importance on science than art Dr.?
Me, Krishna : It is not an emotional support. It is an attempt to remove baseless beliefs about science. If an attempt to remove misconceptions about something is made and if you think this is done because of "emotional attachment" to it, nothing will be far from truth. If a doctor tries to remove a false belief about a disease to get people educated and help patients in the process, and if you think the doctor is "emotional" to do that, it shows your lack of understanding on how knowledge can be spread. Are all teachers "emotional" to spread knowledge in schools - To teach science and evolution? A scientist talks about science because s/he is well versed in it. If you say a scientist is writing about science or giving lecture on science because s/he is emotionally attached to it - I will say - What an absurd assessment?!!

When you think something is not true, you say it and try to clarify things - not to support it. I have criticized science and scientists too several times. Maybe you are not aware of it. I could do it because I don't get attached to anything emotionally. It is really difficult to communicate here when you say one thing and people attribute another meaning to it.
PART VII: Misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge!

Another interesting one where I was explaining and commenting on Bio-art and sressing the need to have a body to monitor it and artists thought it was ordinary art and a a body to monitor it would restrict their freedom and started attacking me!:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=1636727&type=me...

My encounters with artists, especially those that come from the countries where individual freedom is given paramount importance than the good of the society as a whole, is really disturbing. I say this because, they are highly intolerant of any rules that govern science and scientific research. "Me and my artistic freedom , nothing else counts" is their attitude.

Here is an example: http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=1636727&type=me...

An artist says this: I was involved in the early days of ballistic transformation of living cells with DNA attached to golden particles... it was before that very safe pneumatic commercial Gene-Gun from Bio-Rad... I know what I am about to do. And negative reaction is anticipated... negative emotions are always stronger then positive....I need a strong negative emotions for that performance. It will be perfect setup. I love that certificate ....the owner of certificate was genetically modified in his forehead with potato DNA by a Dr. Vladimir Kai during genetic art-event in Tate-Modern.

My reply: Do people really know what they are doing?! Sensationalism! That is what some people are after. Neither real science nor real art! We need a governing body here.

Another artist (A)says: Real Art? Hunh? Governing Body?

My reply: Yes, a governing body to oversee the ethics in Bio-art! Not ordinary art! Had you read the comments by some above and followed keenly the discussions around the world about Bio-art and sci-art you wouldn't have asked these questions! A disconnected reply!!

Another artist A: Dr.Challa's pedantic response about a disconnected reply regarding a "governing body" for ethical concerns in Bio-Art versus "ordinary" art ( whatever that is...) is a bit disturbing. Having seen the development of bio-art at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT,and other places, having followed the work of Joe Davis, Gary Schneider and others for decades, the notion that pioneering work is bent on sensationalist ends is a bit myopic. The idea of having an overseeing group approve the ethical nature of challenging visual or otherwise explorations is a limitation that taxes the imagination. When Andres Serrano made and exhibited "Piss Christ" surely it was inflammatory, but who exactly has the right to say he CANNOT make that piece. Same is true of Chris Ofili's piece with elephant dung and madonna which caused controversy with the former mayor of New York Rudolf Guiliani, who strongly disliked it and tried to have funding cut off for the exhibitor.

Next will be a authoritarian group that determines what is art. Oh. Wait... we had that already-- in Stalinist Russia, in Nazi Germany...in the 1913 premiere of Le Sacre du Printemps...in the McCarthyism of the HUAC and the decimation of numerous blacklisted writers and filmmaker's careers. Should this post be "flagged as inappropriate"? At least these are words, a discussion of sorts, not a wielding of guns in temple or a movie theatre as a complete act of intolerance.

My reply: When one is dealing with science, you cannot have as much freedom as dealing with just art (Ordinary art for me is the one that doesn't deal with science). Because dealing with certain scientific aspects carelessly can have grave implications on the people. Artists who don't accept these implications as grave and refuse to forgo their freedom to deal with science and give ordinary art examples to discuss science based art are far removed from realities. They don't have the required mindset of the sci-artist.
I take several precautions before entering a Microbiology lab and coming out of it. If an artist refuses to follow them, tries to take the harmful microbes to art galleries, he has no right to be in my lab and deal with my subject because the health of the people in the society I live in is of paramount importance to me rather than some artistic freedom. Period.

Artist A: At first, I thought that this forum was the beginning of an interesting dialogue. It seems to have spun into a strange direction. Pedants like Dr. KK Challa appear from the fringe, wear insecurity like a thin veil, and offer pronouncements about reality, freedom, science and "required mindsets" (never mind the ART). Frankly it all leaves me a bit disheartened from the sense that any "discussion" has deteriorated to the vituperative. I was speaking before about actual artworks, particular works known for controversy and widely discussed. Not "ordinary" as I am not familiar with that "movement", philosophy or school. In fact all quite EXTRAordinary. To me, living in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, a CAPITAL of science in many respects, I do know many artists working as scientists with science as an integral part of their artwork. I'll have to ask them about their mindsets. As for working with the physiology of rodents for artistic purposes, I have to wonder about relevance other than as a talking sketch. Beyond that ideation even "writing out loud" can lead somewhere...
My reply: People claim they have a scientific background "to do things". I have a scientific background too. But can I deal with Physics or Chemistry as efficiently as I do with Microbiology? Or deal with other fields of Biology as well as my specialized subject? I don't even say I know everything in Microbiology! I am just a relative specialist not an absolute one! If this is true, what 'scientific background' people are claiming to do things in science and sci-art as they like? Even after getting adequate training, are they absolutely confident that they have full knowledge and therefore can do things as they like without harming the people around them? If you have full knowledge and the ability to distinguish between true art and sensationalism, you won't do things in the way you want. You voluntarily forgo your freedom and prepare to follow the rules of science. To caution people, I would definitely like to write these words in red and put up boards in art galleries: Danger: Bio-art ahead! and in labs: Danger: sci-artists are creating works here!
Mr. A, This is a healthy debate too! How can you refuse to see things from others' point of view ? And complain about their genuine concerns?! And say people are insecure to put the facts before you? This is intolerance!

Mr. A's reply:

Dr. Challa- Well, I am glad you do not proclaim to know everything in microbiology. The little light of humility from such statements begins to lay the groundwork for hope, a very NON-scientific notion. Having said that, I know of no "full knowledge". Elie Weisel the nobel Peace laureate and writer in his mid seventies play "Zalmen or the madness of G-d" tells the story of a Rabbi's clerk who is seemingly insane, until we realize that he has witnessed "God" --not in the sense of seeing the Michelangelo concept of a white bearded all powerful being, but, instead of having been exposed to "pure, whole knowledge". His "madness" is actually the result of an integral "short-circuiting" of his thinking. Metaphorically, it is a very powerful notion. E.O. Wilson's controversial book "Consilience" proposes the "jumping together of knowledge", a place in current time where the acceleration of knowledge due to the complexities of knowledge networks, aided by computational infrastructure worldwide allows for, say, the genome being mapped.
But compromise - (for a whole slew of reasons including economic, theoretical, physical) is a central tenet of ANY creative collaborative endeavor and is an essential element that ultimately will shape the work. I have no pretense to know "true" art. And frankly my opinion on any art form is subjective. To me, Art is determined by Time and intent and as such has no interest in my opinion. As a working artist, writer and filmmaker, I am involved and engaged in both the larger dialogue between artist, scientist and technologist and the interpreters, the audience. I have long held that accessibility is critical. Fear and sensationalism whether about work in the lab, the studio or in public is often based on a distinct LACK of engagement, of understanding context, history and philosophical underpinnings. Danger: bio-art ahead feeds the sensationalist modality, encourages the notorious. Terry Gilliam's wonderfully prescient film "12 Monkeys" about bio-terrorism, insanity, and based on the philosophical short film La Jetèe about a man witnessing his own death, raises many of these complex sociological questions including the role of virology, the role of science, fear of science and protest in society. The only difference to the current conversation is that this is a feature hollywood FICTION. The ethical considerations of the use of animals in research for the purposes of defining efficacy in treatment, could also be passionately argued for red-lined signage at Labs, not for say the radiological use of isotopes in experimentation, but for the fear for the potential ethical treatment of the animals. While there should be rules for the monitoring of scientific experimentation regarding dangerous substances and their combination, ( and there are) the policing of speech for artistic purpose is a slippery slope. Wade Michael Page, the rampaging killer in Wisconsin, arguably was a musician. His hateful music developed through an underground convergence of white supremacists sharing like sympathies, was based in large part on ignorance and intolerance. This anti-social tendency needs red-lettered signs and vigilance. But suppression of it only encourages its pernicious growth. This is where it is vital that ethicists be an integral part of collaborative discussion.
As for the empathic role of seeing ideas from another's point of view, it is in the nature of a free system where the limitations of collaboration encourage cooperative decision making. Your concerns may be genuine, but to me they appear fearful, and presumptively reactionary. The bottom line is the artists who work in science that I know are NOT in the serious business of harming people. They are in the serious business of creating time-based work that operates on an intellectual and sometimes (hopefully) visual/sensual level.

My reply: "The bottom line is the artists who work in science that I know are NOT in the serious business of harming people. They are in the serious business of creating time-based work that operates on an intellectual and sometimes (hopefully) visual/sensual level. "

I don't say artists harm people deliberately. It might be unintentional because of lack of full understanding of a science subject. It is my own experience that despite explaining things to people ( how to handle microbes), they go about doing things carelessly. It is because partial explanation doesn't give a full picture and a full proof system.
You might not know that there are already some restrictions on handling Bio-art specimens in art galleries in developed countries. For example in UK, galleries should show the health care people that they have full knowledge and equipment to handle them. GV art gallery is the only one that has been given permission for conducting Bio-art shows in London. No gallery can do the Bio-art shows on their own without the permission. This is a genuine health care problem. If you dismiss it as timidity and scaremongering, I can only say you don't know much about it practically. You only have a partial picture not a full one. Bio-art is NOT ordinary art. You have to deal with it differently. Is there any use discussing with people that can't see a full picture and say all this is sensationalism? With people who even refuse to see that there is a genuine problem here? Whether any body accepts it or not, people who matter will do what they feel is the right thing. And they are doing it already! There are already 'governing bodies' and there are already restrictions. Things are being taken care of by people who really know the consequences of unrestricted use of things. And that is what matters. What is the use of all these arguments when I know i already got what I want? I won't give any more replies to this discussion and waste my time.

--------

Now, I want to caution the scientists. Artists are very free birds. They want to use their freedom everywhere including in the sci-art too and while dealing with science, which is dangerous. Therefore, each and every scientist has to explain in detail about the subject, precautions to be taken by the artist while in his lab and creating the art work, consequences if the precautions and rules are not followed properly. Only if the artist agrees to follow all this the scientists should agree to collaborate with them. If the artists refuse to agree to follow or take them lightly, the scientists should refuse to work with them. This is in the larger interest of both science, sci-art and the society as a whole.

0 members like this