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

[brian lee dae yung <brian@muxspace.com>]

Hi Luigi,


> 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!

Fair enough. I bring it up because I have been loosely developing a theory on
what I call the 'fractal nature of intelligence', which is the idea that
intelligence exists at all physical scales of organic existence, from cellular
networks to neural networks to social networks. Setting aside the proof for
such a hypothesis and looking at some of the implications, it provides an
interesting framework for exploring cognition. Are there elements of
intelligence and awareness that exist at the cellular level that we can find
and tap into at the human/neural network level? Similarly, what factors must
exist before being able to claim a social network is inherently intelligent?
How can individuals within that network tap into the collective awareness to
better inform themselves? 


> > 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.

Touche. What I'm getting at is that art-science collaborations have the
potential to be symbiotic, not that they are common place. It is a relatively
new phenomenon, one that is gaining popularity within certain fields.


> 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! :)

And I doubt you will ever see that. However, fields like computer science and
some areas of biotech, do have these collaborations, and conferences
particularly in the computer sciences are more regularly featuring a art/music
section where these types of collaborations are surfacing. Given that both art
and science are creative fields, I do think it presents a common ground for
people who are open to such a collaboration to develop projects that synthesize
scientific and artistic rigour. In simplistic terms (although this is more of a
carry-over of the engineering aspect), it is the classic marriage of function
and form.


> 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).

It is certainly worth exploring.


Brian

-- 
  ====
brian lee dae yung
biomimetic art and research
  mux space . com

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.