daviddDESMA9

Like last week's topic, the relationship between nanotechnology and art struck me as one of the more symbiotic relationships between science and art. Not only do advances in nanotechnology stand to inspire new forms of artistic expression, but art itself has helped just as much to inform the science of nanotechnology as it evolved from its classical conception to its modern day uses. I was impressed by how the classical Greeks and Romans were not only able to conceptualize notions of "nano" units of measurement, but also utilize nanotechnology in their pottery. Albeit unwittingly, the use of nanoparticles such as nano-sized gold instead of pigments to create unique iridescent colors in Roman glass and pottery glazes. The same is true for medieval stain-glass, which used gold nanoparticles of varying sizes to create captivating colors.   Although the classical and medieval artists most likely had no understanding of the physical processes that describe how nanopa

Dissatisfied with the opportunities for novel artistic expression in the United States, Ina Conradi and Mark Chavez traveled to Singapore. Singapore aims to become a "Renaissance city" by promoting public art works which aim to return art to a more unique form of expression rather than a commodity to be sold or traded. Conradi and Chavez have contributed artworks such as Chrysalis and the Media Art Nexus which combine not only art and technology, as the "Third Culture" would suggest but elements of Asian religion and culture to create exciting new artworks. (Snow) I was especially struck by the use of 3D modeling techniques lifted from Hollywood to create works of art such as Chrysalis. As far as Hollywood is concerned, 3D modeling is used to tell stories through animation, but not necessarily to create artistic pieces. Mark mentioned his dissatisfaction with his experiences animating for blockbuster Hollywood movies, and used his skills with Maya, a 3D animation

This week's readings provided an interesting contrast to the prior weeks, in that rather than scientific fields influencing artistic expression, art helped to shape the theories which govern how the brain perceives the world around us. Early artists constantly painted images, trying ever-newer techniques to accurately reproduce the world around them. Through this iterative method, artists acted as early neuroscientists, allowing us to glean insights on how our brain works. (Frazetto and Anker) As art evolved, our understanding of how we perceive art evolved as well. Cave drawings were initially two-dimensional clusters of lines that our brains were able to interpret as representations of plants, animals, and other natural objects. While the real world isn't seen as a series of distinct lines separating objects from their background, our brains can interpret the markings as a representation of the real world. As artists refined their work to make it seem more "realistic&q

New forms of art throughout history have often been met with derision and scorn for not adhering to artistic or religious norms, but BioArt is perhaps the first to be challenged based on its ethics and morality. BioArt utilizes live tissue and living organisms to create works of art which literally live and die. This is primarily done through genetic manipulation; inserting genes into organisms which are modified to elicit specific traits. While this may sound more like science than art, it serves as a combination of the two that bridges the gap between the "two cultures" of art and science. I was especially struck by Eduardo Kac's "GFP Bunny", and the ethical dilemma which the project presented. Inserting genes that create fluorescent cells into rabbits so that they glow green may seem bizarre and unnatural, but it's hard to argue that the rabbit's quality of life is endangered by this in any way. It's perceived "unnatural-ness" seems