Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Way to go, Awesome 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!
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.
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."
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.
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?
I have mixed feelings about Natalie J. You see, I really like conceptual art, at least reading about it. I don't think it holds up well as "art" per se, the thing I look to for inspiration and entertainment. But her ideas certainly sound cool in words, and I think she does have an unusual amount of creativity, and I hope she can draw attention to some of the causes she champions.
However- When I was a post-doc at Carnegie Mellon a couple years ago (in electrical engineering), she came and gave a talk about her robot dogs. I remember leaving early, severely annoyed, for several reasons. First, she showed up barely in time to give the lecture, then proceeded to edit her powerpoint slides for 15 minutes (I'm not exagerating, I timed it) with the projector on, so everyone sat there bored, watching her move her slides into a different order. No apologies for starting late, or explanations of why she wasn't ready. It appeared to be a talk she had given the day before- she edited, in front of us, the name of the institution and date on the title slide.
Finally, she finished her editing and began her talk. Let's just say, she had nothing to say. She would put up a slide, and ramble off the top of her head for a few seconds, or if she couldn't think of anything, she would play a video of one of her pieces (which at least was a little bit more interesting). But it was going nowhere, and finally I got up and left. I remember the next day, telling another post-doc in my lab about it, and how I thought bullshitting was apparently the skill most useful for getting grant money and/or a big salary (Natalie was just one example of several people we were discussing). I really couldn't believe this undisciplined person was a professor.
If Natalie is reading this, I would like to say, please have some respect for your audiences (and the tax payers!). Being an eccentric/left brain type does not give you license to show up late and unprepared and waste everyone's time. I would never grant her money for her work.
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"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
