Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Hi Simon, Totally agree. For some years, I´ve asked myself the same questions and got some answers. * How can you know the value of something that doesn’t exist yet? *You simply cannot. That certainty leads me to draw the most bizarre estimates, specially knowing what the grant wallahs in Catalunya, Spain and the European Community want to see: PROFIT in CASH * Why does everything have to have a value? *Everything, even a dream has its intrinsic value for a creative mind. But all the grant wallahs want to see is HOW MUCH CASH is involved in a project and HOW MUCH PROFIT in CASH they´re gonna pocket back. Cultural Industries they call us. Anything we propose has to be technically productive in CASH. Nothing comes for free anymore for the tax payer. I think it´s obscene * *Best regards Montserrat Bru http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/0585AD78EB0ABF57/ * * On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: Artists are generally going into these situations looking for surprising outcomes whilst scientists are often unsure what their value will be to their work. Having done a few of these interdisciplinary collaborative things this has been my experience. That said, many scientists are up for unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. These pressures function to pervert what research is all about (finding/creating things you didn’t know you might find/create). How can you know the value of something that doesn’t exist yet? Why does everything have to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk -- *From: *james morris ja...@jwm-art.net *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) *To: *netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâ•˙s have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- Zumzum Gallery. Emerging Arts. India Digital Power Poetry project House 156. Anjuna Zoor Waddo Anjuna 403509 Goa. India India cell: +91 9850781599 Zumzum Gallery.Emerging Arts. Barcelona post address: Gràcia Fiscal, s.l. Camprodon 1 08012 Barcelona Spain Spain Cell: + 34 629486684 Zumzum Gallery. Emerging Arts. Holland post address: Anthonie Camerling 16 3322EA Dordrecht The Netherlands Holland Cell: + 31(0) 613539662 Skype: zumzumgallery http://www.zumzumgallery.com/ http://www.digitalpowerpoetry.com/ http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individualvideoid=29089193 http://montserratbru.blogspot.com/ zumzumgall...@gmail.com digitalpowerpoe...@gmail.com m...@zumzumgallery.com ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
It's an interesting point Paul. In the UK we have funded arts research through the AHRC. I don't believe that academic research does greatly compromise creativity or art making. Certainly not in my experience and I've received a couple of AHRC grants. In fact this money has enabled me to pursue projects that would have been impossible to fund and produce from other sources. The money is significantly more than you'd normally receive from the UK Arts Council for example (who have their own agendas that you have to meet). To me it's not possible to talk of an unbridled creativity as separate from the social and economic forces that surround it. Economic forces distort practice whether it's market mechanisms or government funding. When I was a painter in the late 80s and early 90s my gallery used to lean on me to produce certain kinds of work that they knew they could sell. Research council funding in the UK (IMHO) has produced a huge boost in the amount of work being made, formal events (conferences etc.) and the quality of discourse around contemporary art. For me that's a huge plus. Sure there are research agendas built into these grants - many of them urgent - like climate change that need addressing. Any artist worth their salt should be able to work with, against, around and through these. best wishes Tom Corby Pall Thayer wrote: unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. This is exactly the problem I have with the art practice as formal research trend. It's great that this has opened new avenues for art funding but at what price? I fear that this is going to produce a lot of boring art that probably sounded interesting on paper but is missing the spontaneity that makes some artwork really leap out and grab you. Too precisely calculated. Art should, at the very least, have strong elements of spur-of-the-moment whim to highlight that violent tumultuousness that is unbridled Creativity (with a capital C). The academic research approach is always going to involve major compromises. The magic happens when just dive in. You'll have plenty of time to ask questions and fine tune concepts later. Hmm... how about a research project that examines the effects of academic institutionalisation on creativity? best r. Pall These pressures function to pervert what research is all about (finding/creating things you didn't know you might find/create). How can you know the value of something that doesn't exist yet? Why does everything have to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris ja...@jwm-art.net Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâ*˙s have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
I don¹t think the problem is with art and other disciplines getting together. Nor do I think it is with research. There is nothing intrinsically at fault with any of these activities or how they can be undertaken in various combinations. They can be hugely beneficial to one another. If you are constantly looking for new methods of making and disseminating art, of how art can exist and people constitute themselves around it, then mixing things up is default. That is how new ways of seeing and being are uncovered. The problem is when the things that makes these activities personally and collectively rewarding are expected to fulfil other forms of utlility. Montserrat is right in her analysis that those who hold the purse strings expect a return on their investment. Whether that money comes from academic or cultural funding agencies doesn¹t matter. It is all government money and these days governments, in their desire to constantly show value to others (the electorate, industry, etc), instrumentalise everything they touch. This has a bad effect on art and science (both are creative activities with similar requirements). Neither are industries. They are not means of production that can be assimilated into that economic model. The commercial art market offers no succour either. That is a world where novelty, rarity and authenticity have been fetishised and commodified to the point of obscenity. In that environment shit smells sweet. Artists have to make choices, just like anybody else. You can starve, take government money or sell-out. What are the other currently available options? I can think of some which exist in very specific contexts (gift economies in small tribal contexts) but without changing the whole global economic model I don¹t see anything viable. I also do not think the world is going to change at least, not through good intentions. Sorry to be so down. I¹m not really. I¹m in Berlin setting up a show and quite happy. It is one of my favourite cities, even though it has changed horribly over the past twenty years. Nevertheless, whilst Berlin has been profoundly damaged by corporate and governmental pressures it is better off as a real city, open and evolving, than in its prior existence in a netherworld created by some of the more absurd geo-political dynamics of the Cold War. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:21:48 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. This is exactly the problem I have with the art practice as formal research trend. It's great that this has opened new avenues for art funding but at what price? I fear that this is going to produce a lot of boring art that probably sounded interesting on paper but is missing the spontaneity that makes some artwork really leap out and grab you. Too precisely calculated. Art should, at the very least, have strong elements of spur-of-the-moment whim to highlight that violent tumultuousness that is unbridled Creativity (with a capital C). The academic research approach is always going to involve major compromises. The magic happens when just dive in. You'll have plenty of time to ask questions and fine tune concepts later. Hmm... how about a research project that examines the effects of academic institutionalisation on creativity? best r. Pall These pressures function to pervert what research is all about (finding/creating things you didn't know you might find/create). How can you know the value of something that doesn't exist yet? Why does everything have to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris ja...@jwm-art.net Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
These are of course all valid points and I would say that at the very tip of things, one of the biggest choices an artist makes is whether to operate within academia or outside of it. Then there are choices to make within those two realms as well. I, for instance, have (for now at least) chosen to have a day job that frees me from having to rely on my art as a source of income. This suits me well right now and I feel quite unencumbered in not having to explain to anyone what I have in mind before I do it. I just do it and in comparison to producing work within the academic realm, I personally feel that it's having a positive effect on my creativity. That being said, it does however suck having to work two jobs with the more interesting of them not being the one that pays the bills. I do make compromises but these are compromises that I choose to make, not that are forced upon me. But all in all, I feel emboldened in my art and am daring to explore paths that I wouldn't have done before. It's always a bit of a catch 22 though. I feel that in exploring these paths, I'm making valuable discoveries that would benefit the academic realm. Would I then accept a job if offered? I don't know. It would be a tough choice. best r. Pall On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Simon Biggss.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: I don't think the problem is with art and other disciplines getting together. Nor do I think it is with research. There is nothing intrinsically at fault with any of these activities or how they can be undertaken in various combinations. They can be hugely beneficial to one another. If you are constantly looking for new methods of making and disseminating art, of how art can exist and people constitute themselves around it, then mixing things up is default. That is how new ways of seeing and being are uncovered. The problem is when the things that makes these activities personally and collectively rewarding are expected to fulfil other forms of utlility. Montserrat is right in her analysis that those who hold the purse strings expect a return on their investment. Whether that money comes from academic or cultural funding agencies doesn't matter. It is all government money and these days governments, in their desire to constantly show value to others (the electorate, industry, etc), instrumentalise everything they touch. This has a bad effect on art and science (both are creative activities with similar requirements). Neither are industries. They are not means of production that can be assimilated into that economic model. The commercial art market offers no succour either. That is a world where novelty, rarity and authenticity have been fetishised and commodified to the point of obscenity. In that environment shit smells sweet. Artists have to make choices, just like anybody else. You can starve, take government money or sell-out. What are the other currently available options? I can think of some which exist in very specific contexts (gift economies in small tribal contexts) but without changing the whole global economic model I don't see anything viable. I also do not think the world is going to change - at least, not through good intentions. Sorry to be so down. I'm not really. I'm in Berlin setting up a show and quite happy. It is one of my favourite cities, even though it has changed horribly over the past twenty years. Nevertheless, whilst Berlin has been profoundly damaged by corporate and governmental pressures it is better off as a real city, open and evolving, than in its prior existence in a netherworld created by some of the more absurd geo-political dynamics of the Cold War. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:21:48 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. This is exactly the problem I have with the art practice as formal research trend. It's great that this has opened new avenues for art funding but at what price? I fear that this is going to produce a lot of boring art that probably sounded interesting on paper but is missing the spontaneity that makes some artwork really leap out and grab you. Too precisely calculated. Art should, at the very least, have strong elements of spur-of-the-moment whim to highlight that violent
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
It wouldn¹t seem wise to accept any position which didn¹t function to enable your artistic work. Luckily my job doesn¹t just pay the bills but enables my creative work directly, with equipment, space, skilled collaborators and a critical but supportive discursive environment. I feel I am part of a small creative community where I work. Check out http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle to see what I mean. This model can work really well for artists, as Tom Corby noted, robustly supporting practice with budgets way beyond what the Arts Council can consider awarding and allowing broad creative freedom (although if you say you are going to do something in a funding application then you do have to do it). Of course there are other hats you have to wear when in academia. The committee work can be a strain, as well as the paperwork. The teaching can be a boost to your creative work, if you are lucky to have good students (and not too many of them). Where you work makes a difference too. Not all academic institutions are the same, with some vigorously upholding the values that go with academic freedom and free thinking whilst others seem more concerned with fulfilling government or corporate agendas. Given the choice again I would make the one I did which I did with foresight, having worked in academia in the 80¹s and then left it in the 90¹s to be a fulltime artist. When offered the opportunity to return, but in a research rather than teaching role, I took it with my eyes wide open. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:43:48 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] These are of course all valid points and I would say that at the very tip of things, one of the biggest choices an artist makes is whether to operate within academia or outside of it. Then there are choices to make within those two realms as well. I, for instance, have (for now at least) chosen to have a day job that frees me from having to rely on my art as a source of income. This suits me well right now and I feel quite unencumbered in not having to explain to anyone what I have in mind before I do it. I just do it and in comparison to producing work within the academic realm, I personally feel that it's having a positive effect on my creativity. That being said, it does however suck having to work two jobs with the more interesting of them not being the one that pays the bills. I do make compromises but these are compromises that I choose to make, not that are forced upon me. But all in all, I feel emboldened in my art and am daring to explore paths that I wouldn't have done before. It's always a bit of a catch 22 though. I feel that in exploring these paths, I'm making valuable discoveries that would benefit the academic realm. Would I then accept a job if offered? I don't know. It would be a tough choice. best r. Pall On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Simon Biggss.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: I don't think the problem is with art and other disciplines getting together. Nor do I think it is with research. There is nothing intrinsically at fault with any of these activities or how they can be undertaken in various combinations. They can be hugely beneficial to one another. If you are constantly looking for new methods of making and disseminating art, of how art can exist and people constitute themselves around it, then mixing things up is default. That is how new ways of seeing and being are uncovered. The problem is when the things that makes these activities personally and collectively rewarding are expected to fulfil other forms of utlility. Montserrat is right in her analysis that those who hold the purse strings expect a return on their investment. Whether that money comes from academic or cultural funding agencies doesn't matter. It is all government money and these days governments, in their desire to constantly show value to others (the electorate, industry, etc), instrumentalise everything they touch. This has a bad effect on art and science (both are creative activities with similar requirements). Neither are industries. They are not means of production that can be assimilated into that economic model. The commercial art market offers no succour either. That is a world where novelty, rarity and authenticity have been fetishised and commodified to the point of obscenity. In that environment shit smells sweet. Artists have to make choices, just like anybody else. You can starve, take government money or sell-out. What are the other currently available options? I can think
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâs have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Artists are generally going into these situations looking for surprising outcomes whilst scientists are often unsure what their value will be to their work. Having done a few of these interdisciplinary collaborative things this has been my experience. That said, many scientists are up for unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. These pressures function to pervert what research is all about (finding/creating things you didn¹t know you might find/create). How can you know the value of something that doesn¹t exist yet? Why does everything have to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris ja...@jwm-art.net Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâ?Ts have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discrete ness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwins canopy ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....ResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
unlikely outcomes of uncertain value. It is just that the way academic research is funded there is this pressure to prove the economic and social value of the probable outcomes well in advance of them coming into being. This is exactly the problem I have with the art practice as formal research trend. It's great that this has opened new avenues for art funding but at what price? I fear that this is going to produce a lot of boring art that probably sounded interesting on paper but is missing the spontaneity that makes some artwork really leap out and grab you. Too precisely calculated. Art should, at the very least, have strong elements of spur-of-the-moment whim to highlight that violent tumultuousness that is unbridled Creativity (with a capital C). The academic research approach is always going to involve major compromises. The magic happens when just dive in. You'll have plenty of time to ask questions and fine tune concepts later. Hmm... how about a research project that examines the effects of academic institutionalisation on creativity? best r. Pall These pressures function to pervert what research is all about (finding/creating things you didn't know you might find/create). How can you know the value of something that doesn't exist yet? Why does everything have to have a value? Many artists and scientists prefer not to be concerned with these things. Such considerations are imposed upon them. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris ja...@jwm-art.net Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:26:29 +0100 (BST) To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearchOpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Otherâ*˙s have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. I'm interested to know what the nature of the surprising outcomes are for scientists? (Are the artists less surprised by the outcomes?) http://www.principlesofnature.net/gallery_of_selected_art_works/the_discreteness_of_infinity_art_science_parallels.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/02/darwinscanopy ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
