<html>
<body>
At 01:39 PM 3/16/2008, PJ Manney wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Interesting foray into the
growing awareness about the intersection of<br>
art and science. However, the review seems to indicate he may
not<br>
have taken his argument far enough.</blockquote><br>
This historical topic has been known to express the subjectivity of
perspectives (such as Edward's) rather than accuracy of practices where
the arts and sciences coalesce. In my practice, and the practices
of my arts friends, science is a crucial element, whether the
sciences are hard or soft, and regardless of fields within the sciences
and there simply is not gap. Specializations are not the
enemy. I think Leonardo magazine
<a href="http://www.leonardo.info/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.leonardo.info/</a> has put arguments about Arts/Science being
at odds to rest quite some time ago.<br><br>
For example, I am on the advisory board of a group working with
these:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.ynba.org/2008/music.php" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ynba.org/2008/music.php</a><br><br>
<a href="http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/</a><br><br>
<br>
(snips)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In the arts, the most profound
academic movement of the last 30 years<br>
has been the rise of theory, which is the creative equivalent of an<br>
autopsy, less about culture than about the dissection of culture --<br>
and as such, a kind of cultural death.</blockquote><br>
I can't make sense of this. Sounds like postmodernist
propaganda.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Unfortunately, that's precisely
where "Artscience" leaves us, with a<br>
theory that never quite comes to life.<br><br>
Edwards is a smart, dedicated thinker, and he's definitely tapped
into<br>
something; art and science are coming closer, and technology has<br>
transformed not just our aesthetics but the very ways in which we<br>
create.</blockquote><br>
BS. They came closer eons ago. In fact, in most educated discourse
it is a non-issue. Regardless, I see that there are problems, but
the problems are disputed in rooms with closed windows.<br><br>
Thanks PJ for posting this,<br>
Natasha<br><br><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>, BFA, MS, MPhil</font>
<dd>University Lecturer
<dd>PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty
of Technology
<dd><font size=2>School of Computing, Communications and
Electronics</font>
<dd><i>Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts</i> <br><br>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller</font>
</dl></body>
</html>