Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I really enjoyed this article. I hope Salon.com publishes more articles about the art world. However, I must take issue with the idea that the artist depicted here is any way a scientist (mad or otherwise).
A scientist is defined by the act of doing science. Being influenced or inspired by science (or technology) does not make an artist a scientist. Degrees in science or engineering (which is not science, by the way) also do not make one a scientist.
The author seems to think that boundary between art and science is breaking down. However, I think that wall is as insurmountable as it’s ever been. I also think that it’s impossible to ever really bridge the gap between the two. The two fields have vastly different goals and purposes. Science seeks to explain the world, while art interprets and comments on it.
Don't get me wrong, I think that art is an important and useful pursuit. I also think that this particular artist is probably "reshaping the ways we think about science." I look forward to seeing her art in the future and I hope it teaches me something about science and life. I also hope to read more about the art world in Salon.com!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
