I can truly respect the idea of merging art and science together. I love the idea! In our Arts Seminar, we are always discussing art that makes us think, so if science can’t make that happen, I’m not sure what can!
Shane Hope has created a hollogram-like experience with photographs that presents them as three-dimensional objects. On a wall within the gallery, there is a grid of 160 squares that are all a part of this intricate machine. In addition, there are homemade machines in the gallery called RepRaps. These machines are on wheels, and they produce three-dimensional representations of objects scanned by it. Basically (which is a poor word choice, considering the perplexing complexity of these machines), these machines are all assembled by the same parts and one machine could potentially be turned into one of the other ones in a “Matrix” style. His exhibition is called “Transubstrational: as a Smart Matter of Nanofacture,” which clearly doesn’t hide its inclusion of technology in this artsy experience.
Since the piece can be assembled in many different ways, it requires human interaction in a certain way, which adds an entirely new side to art in my opinion. I think that he really has a unique experience to offer (and not just because his name is Shane) in that when you look and analyze each piece, it teases one side of the brain that’s saying, “This piece is technically the same as the other one, because it’s composed of the same pieces.” Honestly, I would demand a demonstration, because quite frankly, I’d have a hard time grasping the idea when it’s right in front of me.
I believe that the moment we start to incorporate technology and new inventions into art, it’s a clear sign that art is moving forward and in sync with interests of the current decade. Notice how the word “growth” wasn’t used here, because I would argue that it may not necessarily be growth, as we talked about in class. However, I would argue that art has to keep the general public’s interest, just like other forms of art. I think artists like Shane encourage others to push the limits even further.
Given the human interaction that this piece requires, it reminds me of the New Museum that I posted about in the past and that we discussed in class. The tank that involves humans lying together in water and having a combined experience isn’t far from Shane Hope’s idea of his piece’s transformation. The idea that anyone could walk up and transform one of the pieces into another one (not easily, I should say) makes the art viewer feel a part of the masterpiece.
As I look into current art exhibits, it seems that more than one have been pointing in the direction of new technology. It also seems that audiences of art and generations to come are more interested in attractions that can bring the most entertainment. So if art can bring the “masterpiece” quality along with the entertain quality, it’s sure to stick around for a while! I have provided some information on Shane Hope’s exhibit in the in the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/arts/design/shane-hope-transubstrational-as-a-smartmatter-of-nanofacture.html
Using science and art is a very interesting method in creating art. Why? The answer is simple. It uses both hemispheres of the brain, causing us to be fully engaged with the work that is being examined. They can be used to help each other. What do I mean by that… well art can depict scientific discoveries and science can help us create art. Here is an example: http://eyeondna.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/img-5121.jpg –> this simple sculpture enables children to learn about DNA while enjoying the art that was created, simultaneously.
When art incorporates other aspects of our world such as technology, it is at its best. The idea of a hologram-like, three-dimensional art is even more wonderful because it brings the art to life. It makes the art feel more real and makes it an experience in itself.
It is significant, though, that Shane (Dorman) notes that this kind of art is not necessarily “growth,” as we debated in class. The truth is that when we talk about technology, advancements are very often considered to be “growth.” We go from the iPad 1 to the iPad 4 and we have multiple “generations” of technology. Shane Hope’s work, however, should be seen as art and not a technological advancement. Instead it is like trying something new (experimenting perhaps), but of course that can be debated as well. Perhaps it is a challenge to “push the limits,” as Shane (Dorman) states.
Shane, I think your article helps raise the question on whether technology changes the way we perceive art and how it changes the “economic value” of it. I know you’re an Economics major and tend to look at things with an economic perspective, so here’s what I’ve got to say… In class, we’ve talked about how money affects the value of art and how it makes “modern” artists seem almost technically insignificant as supposed to DaVinci or some other artist that has had great influence on in the worlds artistic history. But, I think that money a lot of the time has a positive influence on art because as technology advances and money becomes arguably more “important”, people are thus becoming more innovative, which helps evolve our view on art.
In one of my blogs, I used the example of how increased technology and the demand for more “authentic” and “realistic” SciFi films, have called for the demand of conlangers (people who create constructed languages). This is an example of an artistic element that helps create more interesting, innovative, and “likeable” art that, in the end, helps the artist make more money. So, it’s great for everyone!
I disagree with Shane’s claim that art has to keep the general interest of the public. I would equate that to Franz Hals being paid to paint portraits for the aristocracy. Do artists need money? Sure, but they also need limited limits. For example, some boundaries are still needed with art, and an artist can only further break down the walls of his box one level at a time, much like an astronaut must pierce one layer of the atmosphere at a time before reaching space. As humans, we tend to learn best through personal experience. For this reason, experimentation is certainly needed for growth. If an artist simply creates to appease a certain audience, there is little, if any, experimentation. Some people are okay with that, but from what we have studied about art, whether throughout an era or throughout one artist’s lifetime (such as the pieces from de Kooning’s MoMA exhibit), art goes through a transformation. Some of it is rubbish; some of it is priceless. However, the ends would not have been obtained had the artist stayed within the confines of his soul’s studio apartment.
I agree with you Shane- this does remind me of the New Museum, and it also reminds me of something I would see at the New York Hall of Science, given its use of science as seen in the holograms. Human interaction also allows the actual art piece to continue to change. While a Frans Hals art piece stays the way it is once it’s been completed, this hologram art isn’t finished. I think more of this art is needed in today’s society, though I think it is evident already. There are more ways than ever for individuals to express themselves now- hell, even Twitter can arguably be an art form. This art piece definitely makes a bold statement in allowing people to take part in something that, yes, looks quite complicated! But art shouldn’t be intimidating and exclusive: people can be snobs about art, but I don’t think art should be snobbish to its viewers. This sounds like a lovely and inclusive piece!
This sounds amazing. I love art that pushes boundaries, and art that forces me to try and comprehend something that is out of my comfort zone. After all, isn’t that what art is supposed to do? If artists stopped trying to change art, what would happen? Imagine if the printing press was invented, but nobody utilized it, because it is “to modern to be art”. That would mean that every single textbook, reading book, religious book, pamphlet, concert program, etc, would have to be hand written. Not only would this restrict the dissemination of knowledge, but it also would restrict art. Printing images, talking about images, painters writing letters to each other about art, would not be possible. So there has to be SOMEBODY who is willing to break the boundaries that society has established with something as simple as a painting. That person is an artist (just like Thelonious Monk, as I have already mentioned, and Eugène Ionesco, and DeKooning, and so on). This does not mean that somebody who is an anarchist–or somebody who breaks the law–is necessarily an artist. There are limits to the idea, but an artist is somebody who breaks down established ideas to their fundamental pieces, and rebuilds them into something that is new. This new thing will still incorporate the original segments, but in new and refreshing ways.