You know those laws that protect corporations but leave animals (and many individuals) out in the cold? Well we have them here in Canada. We also have polar bears that are canibalizing each other - a not very freakish by-product of the diminishment of polar ice floes, their natural hunting grounds. As a law student and environmentalist, it's demoralizing.

Everytime I hear about someone who is combining intellectualism and art to create an alternative vision, I feel excited. I've just about given up on our generation, but what if we can instill a more refined humanity in the children? Imagine, a generation that places ecosystems and life forms before profit and convenience. I think that art has been and will continue to be one of the key mechanisms for instilling such values.

Plus, now I have to go to New York to see some of that crazy artwork. I love New York!

I found this article amazing, informative and inspiring. It is a complete thrill to learn more about one of art worlds true innovators. We should all be pleased that she is able to create so much and still teach.

I find it interesting that every article on Jeremijenko focuses on two things:

1) Her accent.

2) Her looks.

After noting that her CV reads like a cubist interpretation of a scientific education (a "post-doc" at NYU before finishing her PhD?), I'll be brave enough to make a controversial observation: it must be awfully nice to be an attractive, "scientifically literate" woman in the world of modern art.

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!