R: R: [-empyre-] Raquel Paricio opening statement

["Luigi Pagliarini" <luigi@artificialia.com>]

Brian hi! 

> I don't think you're giving the unconscious mind enough 
> credit, nor the intelligence inherent in our bodies at the 
> cellular level. As aggregate multicellular beings, our bodies 
> are constantly processing information and deciding what to 
> do, most of which is abstracted from our conscious state of 
> awareness. The interesting thing about awareness is that the 
> more we are aware of ourselves and our environment, the more 
> it seems that our conscious mind is supplanting our 
> unconscious mind. Or is that going in the wrong direction?

I do agree with you (and Mr. Stellarc should answer on my behalf! :).
But, yes, it might go in the wrong direction, in the sense that I simply
*didn't want* to go that far not to risk loosing ourselves in endless
biochemical (cellular level) or psychoanalytical (unconsciousness level)
discussions. 
But, again, I fully agree and if you all desire that we can dear!

> What I like about the art-science collaboration is that it is 
> very much a symbiotic relationship.

Is it?
I don't see many scientists when walking in art galleries as well as I can
hardly spot artists in conferences and congresses! : )
Unfortunately, I guess that the concept of "symbiosis" and of "relationship"
implies a physical proximity, which is not in there.
Don't you think so?
Could it be called something different? 
Coexistence, for example?
I think that the "soul" of our discussion (the interest and motivation
behind us writing lines right here!) is to be found in the partially strange
opening of the two communities to each others.
I can hardly find places like this: where an engineer disserts about art.
Indeed, I must confess that when running classes at the engineering
department in Odense I'm better off if I don't introduce the concept of
aesthetic, :), and vice versa when running lectures at the academy of fine
arts in Rome, I'd better not to ask about functionality! :)
Further, when, few times (experientia magister vitae), I've even tried to
convince my alumni that they might be the very same thing, I've got toughly
attacked...

> As a scientist and 
> engineer, I would never get away with doing the type of 
> experiments I do in the name or art if it were strictly 
> science. Art gives scientists a certain amount of creative 
> freedom and looseness that otherwise would not exist. That's 
> not to say scientists don't have intellectual and creative 
> freedom. They do, but it is strictly within the confines of 
> the scientific method. If you don't adhere to that principle, 
> you might end of like Pons and Fleischman.

> In contrast, science gives art a bit more rigour and honesty, 
> which is important in the age of conceptual art. Often times, 
> it is too easy to tear apart a conceptual piece that doesn't 
> have enough depth or thoroughness in the idea because the 
> artist wasn't properly exposed to the issues through a domain 
> expert. As our culture continues to integrate more deeply 
> with technology, the artist must stay at the front in order 
> to continue exploring and asking difficult questions. But in 
> order to ask the right questions, they need to tap into some 
> of the rigour and domain knowledge that scientists posess.


I partially agree. 
My opinion is that art is as strict to aesthetics as science is to
methodology.
And maybe this is what should be fixed (in both directions).


Cheers!
		Luigi