- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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!
