Sunday, July 21, 2013

Biotechnology + Art/ Neuroscience +Art

BIOTECHNOLOGY + ART
For the first part of this weeks lecture we learned about biotechnology plus art. As professor Vesna said, "Artist have entered the laboratories." Its amazing how I would have never made all these connections with art if I would have never watched these lecture videos. For these past three weeks I have became more open about these sort of subjects. Scientist like Eduardo C. and Osamu Shimomura mentioned in lecture part one are not only scientist but artist as well. I found their Albino Bunny "Alba" and the glowing jelly fish very fascinating. At first I was excited about the subject and my imagination started wondering about the beautiful art they can create but then I wasn't sure whether I agree about the abusiveness of animals or not. The animal rights claim its abusive and honestly it might just be.

I became more against the actions of these scientist/artist once while I was watching the lecture part 3. Martha D. modified the wing patterns of live butterflies in attempt to create art work in nature but instead caused these butterflies to have holes in their wings. Its beautiful when experiments come out the way scientist/artist desire them to but when all goes wrong its extremely heartbreaking to me. If Martha's experimentation with this nature would have kept working properly I'm sure beautiful wing designs would have been created. However, this did not occur. I strongly feel butterflies already have their own natural beautiful designs and there is no need to experiment on them. 





NEUROSCIENCE + ART
The second subject for this week was neuroscience and art.  Santiago Ramon y Cajal from lecture 1 was a neuroscientist who originally wanted to become an artist. I am fond of him because he is one of the greatest examples of an artist and scientist together. After all, the overall purpose of our topics is to make the connection between art and science.

Lecture Part 3 was the one that grabbed my attention the most. This was where I really began to think about what restrictions should be made when experiments are being done. It was slightly hard for me to believe that cocaine and LSD were both widely available.   I strongly believe there should have been strict limitations when Albert Hofmann founded LSD. The fact that so many people easily were able to get a hold of this drug was awfully wrong. I also had no idea that Bicycle Day existed as a celebration of the discovery of LSD. 
Works Cited
"A Meeting of Mind: Neuroscience, Art & the Creative Process | IdeaFeed | Big Think." Blogs,

             Articles and Videos from the World's Top Thinkers and Leaders | Big Think. N.p., n.d.


            the-creative-process>.
"Art Inspired by Neuroscience - RobotSpaceBrain." RobotSpaceBrain - A Discovery of Science & Art. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 July 2013. <http://www.robotspacebrain.com/brain/art-inspired-by-neuroscience-2/>.

Vesna, Victoria. "BioTech + Art PT1." BioTech and Art. UCLA. UCLA, Los

              Angeles. 19 July 2013. Lecture.

Vesna, Victoria. "BioTech + Art PT3." BioTech and Art. UCLA. UCLA, Los

             Angeles. 19 July 2013. Lecture.

Vesna, Victoria. "Neuroscience + Art PT1." Neuroscience and Art. UCLA.

             UCLA, Los Angeles. 19 July 2013. Lecture.

Vesna, Victoria. "Neuroscience + Art PT3." Neuroscience and Art. UCLA.
   
             UCLA, Los Angeles. 19 July 2013. Lecture.




4 comments:

  1. Really good post this week. I also began to be against the connection between art and science when the experiment on the butterflies went wrong. Your post was very interesting this week and i am excited to read more next week.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi,
    I understand your idea. However, I highly agree to use biotechnology for modifying DNA. I know there are critical problem, but I am sure that biotechnology will save human life in the future. I have interesting YouTube link that I want to show you. Come to my blog and I want to get response from you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for commenting!
    Dohyum I understand why you would agree with the use of biotechnology for modifying DNA because there are some convincing factors but there are other things that just seem to push me away from the concept. Maybe if it was used for only necessary things and not just experimental things that change nature like those butterfly wings. I will go take a look at your link right now. THank you

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Laura,
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you. I have mixed feelings about biotech for modifying DNA. There is something about it that just freaks me out. I feel as if the experimentation that takes place in the field is lacking restrictions. I believe there should be ethical principles scientists and doctors alike should adhere to in order to protect and respect nature.
    I do agree with the fact that when these experiments result in beautiful projects or bring benefits to society then we are all happy and more accepting of biotech. But when experiments go wrong like that of the butterfly wings, it is shameful and its a set back to the field and society in general.

    ReplyDelete