Re: LIFESCIENCE: lifescience

[Trevor <tebatt@dds.nl>]

---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
LIFESCIENCE
Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
http://www.aec.at/lifescience
---------------------------------------------------------
On 20-Jun-99, PROFRICHAR@aol.com wrote:
>---------------------------------------------------------
>ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
>LIFESCIENCE
>Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
>http://www.aec.at/lifescience
>---------------------------------------------------------
>n einer eMail vom 18.06.99 00:36:22 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
> dear trevor
> >that is very true but the forms of sciences will strongly infiltrate social
> in the  >case of lifescience although the starting point is a scientific 
>laboratory.
> 
> Is it not advisable to ask advice by someone who has no vested interest in
> the outcome?

>i do not quite get the point but i think so

The point was to underline the remark which FOLLOWED -which is a bit of a
tricky paradox and one which seems to be forgotten as many people
(politicians and sometimes artists) claim that art and science MUST be
socially relevant.

>
> So perhaps the basic paradox of BOTH art and science is that their
> social relevance is highest when social relevance is not part of their
> strategy.
>
> Is this not similar to the point being made by speer?
>
> >> "   art ,,like life will only reveal itself for what it is AFTER it has
> been
> >> created." -speer
>
>i do not if this is the case i misunderstood speer

Well, I interpet this as implying that a certain "contemplative distance" is
advisable because things need time to develop before they can be evaluated
 -but we shall have to ask him.

>
> >the purpose of art is a special one giving new objects for communication to
> >society
>that was me systemtheory based point of view
>
> So we have TWO slightly contradictory visions here:
>
> Art as COMMUNICATION (for public) and art as INVESTIGATION (for artist).
>
> Personally, I would reject "Art as Communication".
> Although of course there are no watertight divisions:
> -in order to communicate one should presumably investigate first
> -and investigation can produce information which may influence others.
>
>these two points just seem contradictional, they maybe different stages of
>the same process.

That is the reason I added the comments which followed, because it often
depends on context, interpretation and "focus" how "similar" or "different"
things are. This is something which our "semantically" orientated culture
is not very good at dealing with -the question of how "significant" is a
difference. i.e. The "shortest distance between two points is a straight
line" -there is one straight line between any two points on a flat surface,
but on a circle there may be one, two or an infinite number of "shortest
distances" (straight lines) between two points depending on which two points
one choses. So -a "straight line" on a flat surface (if one could find one)
is conciderably different to a "straight line" on a curved surface (like
the earth -where a "straight line" may be a circle) -and yet it remains
simply a "straight line on another surface" -and therefore (by implication)
the same.

How many philosophers could debate for how many days -simply over the
question of "difference" between two human beings when the reproductive
organs of one of them have been "modified" to hang outside the body and to
generate fresh genetic material for the reproductive process instead of
storing it from birth. In fact the point was raised -but dissapeared again
(unfortunately).

It may make life much easier when we assume all differences are trivial
-but it can be dangerous (i.e. is that the poisonous snake -or the other one?)
-and it can also cause serious injustice (i.e. when gender or cultural
differences are involved -but also when communicating with people with
different vision or hearing, etc..).

This is surely why it is important (for art) to indulge in reflective
contemplation and not to rush encouraging people to do things when nobody
has any idea what the consequences may be (even if it does seem profitable
in the short term).

 Of course "A fool who persists in his folly will become wise"
-but must others pay for their education!

I mean -a few genes here or there -what difference does it make!

> But, even if the path is the same -then the direction of the traveller will
> surely affect their view, and people moving in different directions will
> see different things.
>
> So we can kill each other because we have differnt views -or we can have
> the pleasure (and knowlege) gained by exchanging and comparing them.

>no we will not so this is the fun of making up a discussion and exchanging
>our view i think

I hope so too -but these remarks originated because of my objection to
people ending a discussion purely on the basis of a generalised reference
to some (respected) author.

>
> At the risk of boring everyone -I have forwarded separately some remarks I
> posted on another (Ars Electronica) list. Just to prove I am not entirely
> against the smell of money.

At least -I thought I had, did it get lost?

greetings,
trevor

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE
To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to
lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------