Week 8: Nanotech + Art

Quantum Dot display technology

This week's unit demonstrated not only the countless ways in which nanotechnology already affects our daily lives, but also the ways in which it could improve our lives. I found it particularly interesting that nanotechnology applies to all of the concepts and fields we’ve discussed in previous units, everything from medicine, and neuroscience, to mathematics and robotics. As Dr. Gimzewski discussed in his lectures, nanoparticles could revolutionize medicine because of their ability to selectively penetrate and target certain cells and chemical receptors in the body. I found the ‘quantum dots’ he discussed to be particularly fascinating. Not only could these revolutionize the fabrication of cosmetics, and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in those products, but they could also change the way in which we mix and create colors in an art context. Quantum dots are already being implemented in the newest kinds of TV’s and displays and could potentially allow us to tap into a new level of manipulation of color for painters, photographers, or any kind of artist who works with an electronic display in the creation of their work. 

Some of the applications of nanotech

In their paper on nanoscience, Gimzewski and Vesna propose an interesting idea about nanoscience and its relationship to other fields: “Nanoscience not only requires input from practically every scientific discipline, but it also needs direct and intense collaboration with the humanities and the arts.” (Gimzewski & Vesna 2003). Nanoscience is definitely rooted in the discoveries of physics, chemistry, and most other forms of physical sciences that predate its inception. But I think this statment is suggesting a need for collaboration with arts because this is how nanoscience will be directed in its application. While chemistry and physics may help us learn about how to develop new nanoparticles, or offer clues to some of their functions, it is the arts and culture of humanity that will help us find the best ways in which these technologies can be applied. 

Nanoscience can be seen as an amalgamation of many scientific fields focused purely on scale. Dr. Gimzewski’s lecture showed us many ways in which manipulating the scale of different elements and compounds can completely change their properties. I find it interesting that scale is also a pivotal component in art. This offers a strong parallel between what nanoscience is focused on achieving and what artists have been manipulating in their creations for thousands of years. The earliest examples of nanotechnology in the Roman’s use of gold nanoparticles is a great example of this. It is inspiring both artistically and intellectually just how significant the manipulation of scale can be.

Nanoscience is focused on scale

References: 

Alexis, Frank, et al. "New frontiers in nanotechnology for cancer treatment." Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. Vol. 26. No. 1. Elsevier, 2008.

Dabbousi, B. O., et al. "(CdSe) ZnS core-shell quantum dots: synthesis and characterization of a size series of highly luminescent nanocrystallites." The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 101.46 (1997): 9463-9475.

Gimzewski, Jim, and Victoria Vesna. "The Nanoneme Syndrome: Blurring of Fact and Fiction in the Construction of a New Science." Technoetic Arts Technoetic Arts 1.1 (2003): 7-24. Web.

"What Are Quantum Dots, and Why Do I Want Them in My TV?" Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, n.d. Web. 27 May 2015.

Wiechers, Johann W. "Cosmetics & Toiletries." Skin Penetration by Quantum Dots. N.p., 9 Dec. 2008. Web. 27 May 2015.

Week 7: Neuroscience + Art

Mental imaging is important for any artist

The ability to mentally visualize is one of our brain’s most important functions. Humans all have the ability to mentally represent things they’ve interacted with in the world before, or even create entirely unique mental representations of nonexistent things. This brain function, one that is readily researched in the field of neuroscience, represents the source of art. While our bodies are ultimately allow us to physically produce art (ie. paint, or play an instrument), our minds our where all art originates. To this end, neuroscience and art share a close relationship. As stated by Frazzetto and Anker in their Neuroculture article: “Certainly, the circulation of concepts and theories about brain function and the mind in the public domain and their representation in artistic creations is not a recent phenomenon.” (Frazzetto & Anker, 2009). Given that the brain is a principle tool for any artist, neuroscience has fueled a deeper understanding of the artistic process, and its underlying mechanisms. 

Mind, body, and spirit

The separation of mind and body is a particularly fascinating idea that has fueled countless artistic creations. The separation from reality and what can happen within the mind is another important source of artistic creativity. As Jung puts it in his paper: “The upheaval of our world and the upheaval of our consciousness are one and the same.” (Jung, 2014). This statement highlights the fact that in fact, our “reality” is dictated by our perception and our minds. So ultimately, even though it may feel as though things happening inside our minds may not reflect reality, our mental experience IS our reality.

The left right brain stereotype is a fallacy

I found Neuroaesthetics to be a particularly intriguing field of research in the material we discussed this week. I think it is important for any artist to consider the brain as their main tool for creation, and understand the mechanisms behind what it is they are doing. Understanding the way in which our thoughts connect, and we learn new skills, on a neurological level, can help make the creative process more seamless. For instance, it is a common misconception that somehow ‘artistic’ people have a stronger ‘right brain’ and. In fact, neuroscience research has shown that both sides of the brain are equally important for any creative process and that right vs left brain comparison is a hoax. Ultimately, I believe being more in touch with what’s going on in your mind makes you more in touch with what it is you’re creating. 

References:

Brooks, Katherine. "Study Says Making Art Is Good For Your Brain, And We Say You Should Listen." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 22 May 2015.

Drake, John M. "Ecology, Cognition and Landscape: Linking Natural and Social Systems . Landscape Series, Volume 11. By Almo Farina . Dordrecht (The Netherlands) and New York: Springer. $129.00. Xi + 169 P.; Ill.; Index. ISBN: 978-90-481-3137-2 (hc); 978-90-481-3138-9 (eb). 2010." The Quarterly Review of Biology 87.1 (2012): 55-56. Web.

Frazzetto, Giovanni, and Suzanne Anker. "Neuroculture." Nature Reviews Neuroscience Nat Rev Neurosci 10.11 (2009): 815-21. Web.

"History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian." History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2015.

"The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man." Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 10: Civilization in Transition (2014): n. pag. Web.

Week 6: Biotechnology and Art

Vacanti mouse

Mice genetically modified to have glowing cells

BioArt is a growing, and fascinating field, full of controversy. On one hand, while biotech, and vast amount of nature that surrounds us can be put together to create some incredible pieces of art, the manipulation of nature makes it a controversial field. I believe that in this sort of art, we should restrict ourselves to using our own bodies, and organisms we’ve engineered for art purposes. I believe that using other organisms as canvases, especially when it harms that organisms basic life or reproductive functions, and isn’t providing any important discoveries within science, is wrong. I think our tendency to meddle with nature is what has put us in this precarious situation with our own climate, and has endangered countless other species with which we share this planet. In his writing, Levy makes an interesting point that we should include organisms beyond ourselves in our ‘politics’: “Sociologist Bruno Latour (2004: 53–91) suggests that we revise our social structures to allow for a ‘political ecology’ that will encompass both humans and nonhumans. In light of the recognition that we share so much of our genetic background with other species, bioartists such as Kathy High and Adam Zaretsky challenge our sense of human uniqueness through exhibitions that explore less known aspects of animal behavior and culture.” (Levy). I believe the work of artists like these, that involves increasing awareness of our place in a greater ecology, and our relationship with the nature around us, is the most impactful. I think High's Embracing Animal and Blood Wars projects are particularly noteworthy.   

Kathy High's Embracing Animal Project

The combination of art and science in BioArt is unique in its relationship to nature, especially compared to previous art + science interactions we’ve explored previously. I believe this is true because it is the only medium in which the biotechnology used in this art form is implemented directly on the organisms that surround us. Unlike robotics or mathematics which involve manipulating circuits and numbers, BioArt often involves manipulating life. I think Levy makes an important point about biotechnology based art: “Life-forms produced through genetic engineering are necessarily a mix of nature and culture.” (Levy). I think it’s important to be aware of the way in which our culture interacts with nature. In this sense, I don’t believe biotechnology should be used simply as a creative outlet in the same way music, math, or painting can be used. I think we should be pay attention to our relationship with nature, and create art that focuses on furthering our understanding of this relationship.

References: 

"Blood Wars." Blood Wars. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.

Byerley, Anne, and Derrick Chong. "Biotech aesthetics: Exploring the practice of bio art." Culture and Organization ahead-of-print (2013): 1-21.

"Embracinganimal.com." Embracinganimal.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.

Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." (2007).

Vacanti Mouse." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.