It's gone a bit quiet about science and art hasn't it? That's not to say that there's nothing to think about. It seems to me that the original impetus for the sci-art collaborations and process was the legitimation crisis facing contemporary science over the genetic modification issue. That has faded from the public imaginary, and politics is working to diminish the role that public unease can have on the GM implementation process.As a result, there is less need for the marketing of science through other means. Anyway, much sci-art was illustrative rather than consensual.
As an example, I saw a project with Humphrey Ocean- trad drawing/painter chap- and some empiricist neurologists, looking at what happened in the brain while arts processes went on. So they stuck the head of aforementioned artist into a scanner while he tried to do a drawing of someone. Now this led to an illustration rather than a collaboration. A dynamic model - for example looking to see if mental processes changed while someone developing arts capabilities- might have been more interesting. My own area of interest at the moment is for developing geographic/art thinking. Forthcoming diffusion e-books from myself, Roshini Kempadoo, Mohini Chandra and Andy Pratt will try and tease out some strands of possibility. www.proboscis.org.uk I am a list heretic. I still have last months thoughts. off to Canada, talk later, regards from gair ------------------------------------------------- a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "info ambit" in the message body -------------------------------------------------
