NanoThoughts

Being of the doctrine “I’ll see it when I believe it,” it’s generally been hard for me to conceptualize nanoparticles and nanotechnology. I was amazed to learn that scientists, with their state-of-the-art microscopes, don’t see these small pieces of matter, but rather sense them. It takes an amazing amount of confidence in the science – and maybe a small leap of faith – to trust their senses in this way. As Professor Vesna said, regarding UCLA’s “nano” exhibit from 2003, “this new science is about a shift in our perception of reality from a purely visual culture to one based on sensing and connectivity” [1].

This class is built on the theme that art and science interact and influence each other. It is in fields like this where science is the art. Images like the magnetic nanotubes below are nothing more than results of a physics lab experiment, but they look like much more from an artistic point of view.

Magnetic Nanotubes, Ed Simpson, Yasuhiko Hayashi, Takeshi Kasama and Rafal Dunin-Borkowski 

<http://www.nanotech-now.com/Art_Gallery/Cambridge.htm>

I may have a huge fear of bees, but I think the development of nanobees for medicine is a promising step in nanotechnology [2]. Ray Kurzweil gave a TED talk (below) about the inevitability of the rapid acceleration of such technology, and I am very excited to see what comes in the near future.

<http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_announces_singularity_university>

I found an artist, Jonty Hurwitz, who is creating nanosculptures to raise awareness for humanitary issues. Below is his elephant sculpture, which calls to attention the killing of over 100,000 elephants in 3 years by ivory poachers [3].

Fragile Giant, Jonty Hurwitz, 2015

<http://www.jontyhurwitz.com/fragile-giant>

Perhaps a more light-hearted application of nanotechnology is the creation of images like the one below. Recreating objects we plainly see with nanoparticles “meld microengineering with aesthetics” (Lilley, NOVA) and can de-mystify the workings of nanoscience and is an important communicative tool between scientists, artists, and the general public [4].

“Spaghetti and meatballs?” 

Courtesy Blythe G. Clark, Sandia National Lab, and Dan Gianola Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/art-nanotech.html>

Other universities, like Cornell, are taking initiative to develop nanoart [5]. I hope this points to a future increase in collaboration between art and science in academia.

References

[1] Lovgren, Stefan. "Can Art Make Nanotechnology Easier to Understand?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 23 Dec. 2003. Web. 24 July 2016.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1223_031223_nanotechnology.html>

[2] "Making Stuff: Smaller." NOVA. PBS, 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 24 July 2016.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/making-stuff.html#making-stuff-smaller>

[3] Hurwitz, Jonty. "Nano Sculpture." Art of Jonty Hurwitz. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2016.

<http://www.jontyhurwitz.com/>

[4] Lilley, Maiken. "The Art of Nanotech." NOVA. PBS, 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 24 July 2016.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/art-nanotech.html>

[5] Aloi, Daniel. "2014 Biennial to Explore Nanotech as Artistic Medium." Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University, 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 July 2016.

<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/12/2014-biennial-explore-nanotech-artistic-medium>

Event #1: Beauty and the Beast

Last weekend, for my first event, I went to the Museum of Photographic Arts (MoPA) in Balboa Park, San Diego. Their center exhibit was The Beauty and The Beast: The Animal in Photography. Basically, it was a collection of portraits of animals – many of which reminded me of the medicine unit from class – in celebration of the San Diego Zoo Centennial.

Beauty and the Beast: The Animal on Photography exhibit

One of the first pieces I saw was of a preserved human muscle skeleton (much like those in the Body Worlds exhibit) among encased animal bone skeletons of various species typically found in a zoo. It made me question why Gunther von Hagens’ body-preserving technique was only used on the human while the animals where simple skeletons. The piece seems to contrast humanity against other living organisms by putting the human body at the forefront of the animals and highlighting it with blood red muscle against tan animal bone. I think the photograph reinforces amazement at all living body structures while reinforcing our own human dominance.

Flayed Man (2005), Richard Barnes

Another cool piece was of a fully preserved alligator (or crocodile, I don’t know the difference) in what looks like a taxidermy office. Again, I was reminded of the practice of body-preserving we went over in the medicine unit.

Me with the alligator/crocodile

One of my favorite pieces, however, connected more so to the math unit. In one corner of the exhibit there were two small photos of reptilian skeletons, alongside a pair of blocky, wooden glasses. Intrigued, I put them on, and when I looked at the photos, what I had previously seen as two 2D identical skeletons now appeared as one 3D skeleton. I read up a little bit on these glasses (actually called stereoscopes) and found out that these were the foundation for 3D technology. It’s pretty cool to imagine that over a century ago, people would use these to visualize scientific and mathematical models.

Me and Animal Kingdon Reino Animal (2014), Jim Naughten

I would really recommend seeing this exhibit if you have the chance. Beyond the types of photos I included in this blog, there was also a nighttime section, which, fitting to its name, had dimmed lighting and didn’t allow flash photography. I found these night scenes very beautiful and inspiring. There was also a small niche of interactive objects, including a mirror that recreates your portrait using other people’s faces as pixels. I got a big sense of connectivity seeing myself as a composite image of other human beings.

Me and my mom through Self-Reflection

Butterflies in the Brain

I remember being introduced to Franz Joseph Gall and phrenology in my high school psychology class, but it was only a blip in the lesson and was immediately written off as a pseudo-science. It was enlightening to learn about his discovery of axons and neurons in white and grey brain matter, respectively [1]. Santiago Ramon y Cajal furthered Gall’s neuron discovery with Neuron Theory, a fundamental part of neuroscience today.

Cajal’s Butterflies of the Soul 

<https://www.amazon.com/Cajals-Butterflies-Soul-Science-Art/dp/0195392701>

The most interesting thing about this unit to me was the theme of butterflies that seems to tie together a lot of artists who work with neuroscience. Beginning with Ramon y Cajal and his book Butterflies of the Soul, scientists and artists have been drawing connections between butterflies and the brain for decades [2].

Cajal himself was a very artistic man and believed that scientists were innately artists as well. He produced many detailed drawings of the neuron structures he discovered [3]. In this way, Cajal was a conduit of communication between art and science during his time.

One of Cajal’s neuron drawings

Suzanne Anker is another artist who likened butterflies to the brain. She superimposed butterfly wings on MRI brain scans [4]. She used the same butterfly in each picture, but each looks different because of the way they were mapped onto the brain. It speaks to the difference in perception we have as humans, and her artwork makes me appreciate the beauty and complexity of the human brain, and I am in awe of how our brains function.

MRI Butterfly (8), Suzanne Anker

The other thing that stuck out to me this unit was LSD and the 60s counter-culture. I wasn’t aware that esteemed academics like Dr. Leary and his psychology grad students were experimenting with LSD in the name of art and science, and I did not expect him to get fired and imprisoned for his actions [5]. It’s not new for artists to be met with backlash for their work sometimes, but I find it less common for something that both artists and scientists find common ground on to be so opposed by society. LSD to this day is controversial in its use, and it concerns me that this branch of art is hindered by the laws in place. While I understand the need for these laws, I still find it a shame that this segment of neuroscience art is very limited due to the laws.

<http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/leary.htm>

 References

[1] Mangels, Jennifer. "History of Neuroscience." Psychology 1010: Mind, Brain and Behavior. Columbia University, 2003. Web. 17 July 2016.

<http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/1010/mangels/neuro/history/history.html>

[2] Bentivoglio, Marina. "Life and Discoveries of Santiago Ramón Y Cajal." NobelPrize.org, 20 Apr. 1998. Web. 17 July 2016.

<https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1906/cajal-article.html>

[3] Costandi, Mo. "Unusual Varieties of Soul Butterflies." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 July 2016.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2014/nov/10/unusual-varieties-soul-butterflies>

[4] Anker, Suzanne. "Bio Art - Suzanne Anker." Suzanne Anker. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2016.

<http://suzanneanker.com/>

[5] Vesna, Victoria. Neuroscience Lecture Part 3. Video. 16 July 2016.

Confessions of a Former Bio-Art Skeptic

I must be behind on my clichés, because I had only recently heard the phrase “art imitates life.” I didn’t give much thought to this saying at the time, but this unit on biotech and art brings it to new relevance for me. Perhaps for most of the history of art, this was true. But with the prevalence of genetic technology, art has a new role, not just to imitate life, but to create it as well.

I remember in the first unit on two cultures, we read an article from 2000 by Stephen Wilson that talks about the intersections of art, science, and technology. He expanded on genetic engineering as an example and proposed that “perhaps artists could produce useful or interesting modified organisms for reasons other than commercial profit” [1]. At the time, I mentally scoffed at the idea and could never imagine that such creatures had come into existence that very year.  Alba, the “GFP bunny” modified by Eduardo Kac was an artistic tool that was meant to promote dialogue among many disciplines about the creation of life [2]. 

Alba, Eduardo Kac’s fluorescent bunny (passed away in 2002)

I must admit that when I read Wilson’s article, I was not only doubtful but also concerned about artists using modified organism in their work. However, learning about artists like Kac and Kathy High – who rescued “retired” transgenic mice as part of her work [3] – gives me more confidence that genetic biotechnology is in good hands with artists, perhaps more so than with scientists.

 

Kathy High with a transgenic rat

To me, the overarching message when it comes to bio-art is to question what we consider life, and I think this is a very important message to communicate about with the science world. Mirroring Ellen Levy’s conclusion in her paper on defining life in art, this question will likely become more important as the technology grows [4]. It seems like only a matter of time before the genetic technology used on animals to maximize their utility will become a norm for humans.

Other forms of bio-art, like Edward Steichen’s genetically modified flowers [5], also raise similar questions about life, but their processes and outcomes are much less controversial. Perhaps that raises more questions about life, such as why humans are much more protective over organisms that move over those that don’t.

Edward Steichen with delphiniums (c. 1938)

Ending on my primary note of genetically modified animals, I recently read a dystopian novel by Kat Falls called Inhuman [6]. Its premise is that an overzealous zoo owner started created hybrid animals, and after some unfortunate raids by animal activists, these hybrids became loose and started infecting humans, resulting in human hybrid species. It’s an interesting concept (and perhaps not that bizarre given what I’ve learned this unit), and the book itself dealt with some themes about the disparity between human and animal treatment. I’m looking forward to the sequel!
 



References

[1] Wilson, Stephen D. “Myths and Confusions in Thinking about Art/Science/Technology.” College Art Association Meetings. New York, New York, 2000. Print.

[2] Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." KAC. N.p., 2000. Web. 16 July 2016.
<http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>

[3] High, Kathy. "How Did Matilda, Tara and Star Barbie Become Transgenic Rats?" Embracing Animal. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2016.
<http://www.embracinganimal.com/transrats.html>

[4] Levy, Ellen. “Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications.”Context Providers: Conditions of Meaning in Media Arts. Eds. Margot Lovejoy, Christiane Paul, and Victoria Vesna. University of Chicago Press: 2011.

[5] Hartmann, Celia. "Edward Steichen Archive: Delphiniums Blue (and White and Pink, Too)." InsideOut. MoMA, 8 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 July 2016.
<http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2011/03/08/edward-steichen-archive-delphiniums-blue-and-white-and-pink-too>

[6] Falls, Kat. Inhuman. Toulouse: Milan, 2015. Print.
 

Midterm PDF

Link to Midterm PDF in Google Docs
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9Y8BoNap3naQnV5ZUdWYk91cFk

Medicine as an Art

I am generally a squeamish person, and yet I find myself extremely fascinated by Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds exhibit [1]. It really speaks to the abundance of art and science cross-sections that a medical process like plastination was integrated into a long-standing art exhibit on the human body.

 I was unaware that doctors were more so considered artists than scientists until the 20^th century, when science became a larger part of medical treatment [2]. However, the Hippocratic Oath is evidence of medicine being in close connection to philosophy and ethics more than biological research for most of its history [3]. Both art and medicine can be considered studies of the human body and interaction; thus, it makes sense that these disciplines would interact and influence each other as well.

Classical version of the Hippocratic Oath

The most interesting part about the relationship between art and medicine to me is plastic surgery. One of my guilty pleasures is the television show Botched [4]. Doctors DuBrow and Nassif reexamine patients with “botched” plastic surgery jobs and try to give the patients a better aesthetic. It’s not just the physical act of the surgeries that intrigues me (though I also learned about performance art pieces that involve such things [5]) but the psychological effect a new surgery has on the patients. It really makes me think about how we as a society define beauty when someone’s self-confidence and self-worth relies on good or bad plastic surgery.

"Human Ken" and "Human Barbie," plastic surgery addicts [6]

To me, the best thing art can do is draw attention to absurd social constructs. On the subject of art and medicine, one of the most important social constructs is beauty and human aesthetics. Artists like Orlan draw attention to this subject, and I am eternally captivated by her [7].

1st Operation-Surgery-Performance, ORLAN Reading La Robe by Eugénie Lemoine-Luccioni, Cibachrome, 65 x 43 in, 1990

 [1] Von Hangens, Gunther. "The Idea behind Plastination." Plastination. Body Worlds, 2006. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/plastination/idea_plastination.html>

[2] Vesna, Victoria. Medicine Lecture Part 1. Video. 3 July 2016.

[3] Tyson, Peter. "The Hippocratic Oath Today." NOVA. PBS, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html>

[4] "Botched." E! Online. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://www.eonline.com/shows/botched>

 

[5] Vesna, Victoria. Medicine Lecture Part 3. Video. 3 July 2016.

[6] Fong, Lu. "The GQ A: Human Ken Doll Justin Jedlica on Meeting Human Barbie." GQ. 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://www.gq.com/story/human-ken-doll-justin-jedlica-interview>

 

[7] Orlan. Artiste Transmédia Et Féministe. Web. 04 July 2016. <http://www.orlan.eu/>

 

A Future with Art and Robots

One of the most fascinating things to me about industrialization is Henry Ford’s creation of the assembly line in 1913 [1]. It’s applications in modern technology are two-faced. On one hand, the efficiency is integral for a large-scale economy. On the other hand, mass production of identical products is wiping culture clean of uniqueness. The response many artists have had to this is to take a critical look at a foreseen future of mechanization.

I remember seeing Bicentennial Man when I was around 10 (see trailer below) [2]. While it may not be the most critical and intellectual critique of robotics, it still comments on issues like conformity, individualism, and human emotions in a highly technological society. I see their attempt to humanize their robot protagonist with compassionate emotions as their way of perpetuating compassionate feelings in humanity, even amongst growing industrialization.

I also came across Dave Hanson this week, who has worked to develop robots with realistic human emotions and reactions [3]. His live demonstration of his Einstein robot is like watching a science fiction movie come to life. It is this optimism and excitement about robotics that I grew up with and that shapes how I perceive modern technology now.

However, I can understand a more cynical approach, especially when assembly line efficiency was associated with Hitler and the fascism regime by philosopher Walter Benjamin at the time of World War II [4]. What came to mind when I read his analysis was a recent technological disaster in Microsoft’s artificial intelligence project, which had to be shut down after becoming a “Hitler-loving sex robot” within 24 hours of being live on Twitter [5]. It’s a bit of an unnerving coincidence that the kind of robotic technology Hitler sought to integrate into his country would later become his biggest fan.

The reality is that industrial technology is not perfect and the future of its uses relies on humans to do the right thing with it. Art involving robotics can either suggest a positive direction to take with the technology, or – in the case of Ken Feingold’s artwork – serve as a warning. 

"Hell" Ken Feingold (2013

[1] "Ford’s Assembly Line Starts Rolling." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 01 Dec. 2015. Web. 03 July 2016. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fords-assembly-line-starts-rolling>

[2] Bicentennial Man. Prod. Chris. Columbus. Dir. Chris. Columbus. 1999. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3K1a4aSBdk>

[3] "Robots That "show Emotion"" David Hanson:. TED, Feb. 2009. Web. 03 July 2016. <http://www.ted.com/talks/david_hanson_robots_that_relate_to_you>

[4] Davis, Douglas. "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (An Evolving Thesis: 1991-1995)." Leonardo 28.5 (1995): 381. Web.

[5]Molloy, Mark. "Microsoft 'deeply Sorry' after AI Becomes 'Hitler-loving Sex Robot'" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 26 Mar. 2016. Web. 03 July 2016. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/26/microsoft-deeply-sorry-after-ai-becomes-hitler-loving-sex-robot/>

[6] Feingold, Ken. Ken Feingold: Artworks and Documentation. Web. 03 July 2016.