Did anyone else feel sorry for Jeremijenko's children after reading the article? I know I did. The bizarre names, the life in chaos, the mother with far more ego than talent, the father who puts up with this madness. It's bad enough that Jeremijenko comes off as a lesser character in a David Foster Wallace story without damaging her kids along life's merry way. That the article writer portrays this dilettante as a serious artist/serious scientist goes a long way in showing the immense disconnect between the critical writers and their pets and the real artists and real scientists in modern America. That the article writer glossed over the complete unworthiness of this woman as a mother goes a long way in showing the disconnect between the critical writers and their pets and the basic contract implicit between parents and their children. Children trump art; children trump science; don't have them if you're merely going to utilize them as backdrops in the theater of your overblown existence. Anyone know the number for social services in Jeremijenko's neighborhood?

If she was dowdy and overweight, as someone said earlier, she would have low self esteem and thus probably not be able to be as productive or creative as she is.

Then again if I was buff like Brad Pitt, I would have tons of hot girlfriends due to my great body and my subsequently massive esteem.

I am impressed with Jeremijenko's creativity, artistry, wit and talent and hope to learn more about her soon.

Unlike the derivative or whiny second rate crap most female artists pop out, she seems to have lots of guts to go with her instincts and to produce interesting conceptual work that speaks to our times.

Natalie Jeremijenko, your 15 minutes is up. Please turn in your roller skates and your bad art at the exit.

Somehow, I don't think da Vinci or Henry Moore have anything to worry about from this "artist."

This woman sounds like a brilliant artist but is not a scientist. In addition to Mike_in_NM's comments, I take offense whenever someone is described as being just a dissertation away from a PhD. A dissertation is not a trivial thing. It belittles those of us who toughed it out through 4-6 (or more!) years of failed experiments, scooped projects, and the nightmare of manuscript submssion to be lumped in with someone who took some classes, did a couple experiments and quit. I also wanted to comment on the beginning of the article when the writer mentions Natalie "name dropping" technical terms from biology or mechanical engineering. The mark of a great scientist, such as Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould who were mentioned in the article, is being able to convey your work without resorting to jargon.

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!

Way to go, Awesome article!

Renowned? To .002% of the population, perhaps. I get the impression that if she was a dowdy, overweight woman, folks wouldn't be quite so interested.

Great to see a an article about any artist who isn't dead. There are people out there doing amazing things that the public doesn't really pay attention to. Thanks Salon.

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.

It was a nice contrast to read about Jeremijenko's concern over the antidepressants that the fish in the Hudson River are exposed to (and not just antidepressants: statins, hormones, anti-psychotics . . . the list goes on) after reading the implication in today's "The Fix" that anyone who wants to treat their depression with something besides pharmaceutical drugs must be a wacko Scientologist. Of course, we are also imbibing these powerful chemicals in our drinking water, since most water purification systems are not designed to take them out and I believe something like 90% of these drugs are excreted from our bodies.

Many people, of course, benefit greatly from taking antidepressants, but for an alternative picture of the hell that many people go through taking them and then trying to get off them, check out http://www.aaronwall.com/archives/000028.html. The FDA and the drug companies themselves sure aren't going to tell you.

I'm glad that there are activist artists like Jeremijenko drawing attention to such issues. And I'm relieved that the rift between science and art is starting to close with visionaries like her. She makes an excellent point that it's a fantasy to think that we can possibly be scientifically "objective," the way we like to think we can be. And her reaction to the dread epithet "anthorpomorphism" was refreshing.