R: [-empyre-] David Cuartielles Presentation

["Raquel Renno" <raquel@influenza.etc.br>]

Hi Luigi and all,
 
Just some questions to keep you taking part of the discussion even with your short time...
 
<The biggest difference between artist and scientist is that the last one HAS
to explain everything, while the former doesn't.
Even worse, the scientist, before explaining needs to categorize and name
things, events and phenomena and to do so it tries to push them in to cages,and boxes, with very well defined borders.>
 
I think there are a lot of different practices in what we call scientific and artistic.
 
We can?t forget that there?s art related to marketing and mass media interests and that also tries to define and create labels and sometimes rules.
In the same way, as already pointed out in this discussion, the scientific discourse published/selected by some media or MKT interests can create stereotypes about the scientific practice ? the notion of total objectivity or one big truth that we know that isn?t totally true since there are a lot of concepts being discussed from different points of view inside a scientific group.
I?m not trying to say that that both art and science have the same processes ? not always ? but at this point what other ways do you think we have to think about differences and simiralities about artistic and scientific practices?
 

<I'm pretty sure that the two disciplines can help evolving
consciousness by inventing (or trying to) new ways of represents incoming
data relations with an acceleration similar to that of the technological
growth.>
 
I think this proposal quite interesting. Can you give us more details about how do you develop this in your own research?
 
Kind regards,
 
Raquel