[spectre] science and art

[Louise Desrenards]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <hight at 34n118w.net>
To: <spectre at mikrolisten.de>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:50 AM
Subject: [spectre] science and art


>I have to jump in on this discussion.
>
> I am an artist,writer,musician,theorist,curator,almost scientist (will
> explain) and a bit of an early math whiz.
>
> I played with pattern variations in long number strings as I saw symmetry
> flux and pattern emergence while waiting in the dark and cold for the bus
> as a boy in elementary school.  I began giving weather forecasts and
> correcting the men on tv  (one actually corrected his error after our
> phone call)  around 8 or 9.  I also collected an amazing fact corner in
> the sunday comics that has fueled a lot of my later work.  It was
> etymology (word origins) and fascinated me.  I collected hundreds of them
> over my young years.   I also began writing at that age, although not
> taking it seriously.
>
> I was one of those highly gifted kids so the teachers basically just
> accelerated everything and didn't look for individual interests.   I am
> not bragging by any means, in fact I spent several years failing out of
> school as a teen partially because everone bragged endlessly about iq and
> how little they studied and also I just felt lost.       My point is that
> I saw mystery, answers, searches, curiosity and patterns (in
> math,weather,language and writing)
>
> There long has been  a perception here in america that art and science are
> polar opposites.  But it depends on what perspective of the field you are
> talking about.  I was planning to be a field researcher in experimental
> meteorology looking at uncertainties , patterns, new forms and how to
> model them graphically.

As thematic in Art it's OK, why not? But otherwise of the ethical question
it does not appear so easy to decide...

Doubtless, fortunately, there are always exceptions which confirm the ruler;
but, even if the exceptions manage to be numerous, they are not mainly
numerous in the point to make change the ruler:)
Sans aucun doute, heureusement, il y a toujours des exceptions qui
confirment la règle ; mais, même si les exceptions arrivent à être
nombreuses, elles ne sont pas majoritairement nombreuses au point de faire
changer la règle:)

>
> Now I am a locative and new media artist and have published poems,
> stories,criticism, critical theory and have had my music in some
> experimental music shows.     I still am obsessed with wether and devour
> info on nanotechnology, genetics, string theory etc......
>
> It is important to see how a hypothesis....a question of combination or
> comparison........steps of exploration.......smaller and larger
> questions.........and a conclusion............can be biology or how many
> poems are constructed..........


La question est : oui peut-être que nous créons selon des schémas
biologiques (toute représentation peut toujours trouver son argumentation
logique, arbitraire, sauf à entendre qu'il y aurait une vérité
transcendantale immanente - en quoi pour ma part je ne conçois pas les
questions de cette façon - car alors si tout se réduit à un schéma, de quel
schéma s'agit-il sinon celui de Dieu ou semblablement totalement univoque ?
(la génétique est à la fois le prolongement le prolongement du paradigme
élémentaire d'Aristote, et l'objet total de la conception divine unifiée du
monde).

The question is: yes maybe that we create according to biological plans (any
representation can always find its logical argumentation or abstracted one
as deliberated as to understand that there would be the immanent
transcendental truth of the secret of life- for my part I do not conceive
the question of the things by this way- for instance if everything is
reduced to a plan, of which plan or something can being God as total
conception (Genetics is both of the Aristotle elementary conception and of
the united total universe can being God as paradigm).

Cela vient d'être le sujet d'une rude bataille entre les biologistes, ceux
en réalité des sciences appliquées forgeant des technosciences pour produire
de nouvelles marchandises pas obligatoirement intéressantes pour
l'humanité... voir même - certainement- en tendance de rendre captive
l'humanité (rendre la vie dépendante des technosciences du marché).

What is the subject of a hard fight between biologists but just finished -
genetic not more as the object of biology itself is actually staying only as
a tech-sciences (to produce special commodities on earth) front of the
biologist researchers of new experiment of the process -not of the objects-,
which overpass the question of genome; the prime matter to people is that
all the genetic code being written the conclusion obviously was not of the
key of life;-)

What under the appearance of the multiple variety -even variety of the
business- that could all the contrary recover to reductionist  conception of
the world. As what view of the multiciplicity is not necessarily that of the
autonomy of the varieties in plastic or accidental changes among the
environment - and "learning" of it.

Arts have always imitated sciences or taken sciences as a thematic subject.
But in a critical disposition not a continuum nor of believing of the
issue..

Eclectics can be a notorious personal style or a mode of knowledge,
multifield can be performing inall the fields but they do not signify that
all would be from and to a same continuum of the things.


> I teach writing, design theory, semiotics, art theory and english
> composition and often have been stuck on a point and found a science
> example that filled it in clearly.
>
> One example is when I was teaching how to write personal essay and trying
> to explain how a certain essay was both about a broadening discussion of
> racism in america and simultaneously a tighter and tighter journey into
> understanding the writer (James Baldwin) and his father's blank dead look
> in his eyes.       I tried to explain the two movements, then drew
> diagrams of the spirals and key points in time (personal essay is often
> not linear in time and instead a resonant accumulation/"jumping around")
>     and being saturday morning the students went "mmm pancakes!"
>
> I had to scramble..............so...........thinking oh no this is
> wacky........I explained the simulatenous tightening of eye wall/low
> pressure and fanning upper level exhaust system/high    in intensifying
> hurricanes.....and how it was the same thing in a way...........the
> students listened then   nodded......
>
> I was on a panel in a conference at M.I.T  last year and it was great to
> speak to creative scientists and researchers and to artists in one place.

So what, dear?

>
> There is great similarity, we are simply taught not to see it.

All the contrary.. La question est : oui peut-être que nous créons selon des
schémas biologiques (toute représentation peut toujours trouver son
argumentation logique ou astraite mais sencore, sauf à entendre qu'il y
aurait une vérité transcendantale immanente - ce que pour mapart jene
conçois pas de cette façon - sans, mais alors si tout se réduit à un schéma,
de quel schéma s'agit-il sinon celui de Dieu.

voilà qui relève typiquement d'une conception réductionniste - voir divine -
du monde
>
> jeremy hight
>
> ______________________________________________
> SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
> Info, archive and help:
> http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
>
>
>