“Important questions must also be answered about who can legitimately “own” or control our personal genetic information. And no one has yet been able to address economic, social and legal questions raised by the patenting of genetic resources taken from developing countries.”
Someone (Other Than You) May Own Your Genes - New York Times
My approach to teaching focuses on the conceptual tools students can use to organize and structure their conceptions of the living world. By tools I mean those cognitive devices, methods, and frameworks that facilitate problem solving and aid the implementation of physical tools like software, duct tape, and organizations…download pdf
An exhibit at the New York Hall of Science featuring different kinds of maps ranging from the geographic to the informational.
Kevin Boyack, John Burgoon, Peter Kennard, Richard Klavans, Bradford Paley, Illuminated Diagram: Map of Science, 2006
From IU Discoveries magazine:
Maps of science can show where the infrastructure of a specific research industry exists, along with where ideas, research, and innovations are created. In this way, it is possible to identify and track core competencies of potential collaborators or competitors or to discover emerging research frontiers. A map of Indiana can be created that shows “pockets of innovation,” the pathways ideas take to become products, and the interplay of academia and industry.
However, looking at the maps reveals that quite a bit of information is missing and undocumented. Besides the authors, are there other networks that influence science?
Places & Spaces: Mapping Science
This is an exhibition proposal for Palmer Commons. I am in the process of building a medium-scale architectural piece that I think would fit and function well in the Windows Room on the third floor. The installation is in partial fulfillment of my work towards the MFA degree in the School of Art & Design. A reception may be planned to celebrate the installation/opening.
CLICK HERE FOR {images of the installation/sculpture}
Its approximate dimensions are 12′ L x 8′ W x 10′ H.
Its weight is between 250-500 lbs.
My thought is that the piece could sit in the 16′ space between the two central pillars closest to the windows facing Washtenaw in the Windows room–extending slightly (approx 8 ft from the center of the pillars) into the central space. As such it would be visible and attractive to passers-by. Electrical outlets are the only input needed, and I’ve noted the multiple outlets at the bases of the pillars.
I am expecting to complete the piece by the end of February with proposed installation in mid-March. How long the piece is installed is negotiable-though my aim is three-four weeks.
Please let me know what I can do to make this work out. My contact is available in the right-hand side column. I’ve already contacted and communicated with Mr. Barcena, and if possible, I’d like to arrange a time to meet to discuss the matter as soon as you are available.
Leonardo Education Forum
College Art Association Annual Conference
New York City 2007
Thursday, February 15, 12:30 PM–2:00 PM
West Ballroom, 3rd Floor, Hilton New York
Thinking versus Making:
pedagogy and practice across art, science, and technology
One of the challenges that has always confronted artists is figuring out how to develop a successful formal realization of a concept, in other words, how to bridge the gap between thinking and making. This dilemma is particularly problematic for creative work at the interface of art, science, and technology, which must satisfy multiple sets of criteria that may be at odds with each other. In science, for example, a great deal of emphasis is placed on internal consistency (forming hypotheses, building models, comparison, confirmation, etc). The arts, by contrast, have their own criteria for evaluating their conceptual and formal realization, which, are arguably equally demanding, although they are not as systematically defined.
How can interdisciplinary practitioners fulfill the requirements of science and engineering, while simultaneously producing works of art that succeed in satisfying aesthetic criteria? What projects have been successful both scientifically and artistically and can serve as examples of best practices, methods, and processes for addressing these challenges? How can mentors help students and early career professionals develop integrative behaviors and apply them to hybrid research? What emerging forms of curricula might support more transdisciplinary training? This mentoring session for students and emerging professionals will focus on specific strategies in these areas. A panel composed of three individuals who have successfully negotiated this landscape will kick off smaller group sessions of discussion and questions.
Session Chair: Gabriel Harp [University of Michigan]
LEF Student Co-Chairs Mariah Klaneski and Josh Levy
LEF Chairs Andrea Polli, Eddie Shanken, and Amy Ione
Amanda McDonald Crowley [Eyebeam] brings a substantial and international background in media arts, having worked nationally and throughout Europe and Asia as an arts producer, facilitator, researcher and curator. She served as the Executive Producer of the 2004 International Symposium of Electronic Art (ISEA2004), developing the event from concept to major conferences, exhibitions, performances, concerts and site-specific installations on a ferry in the Baltic Sea and locations in Estonia and Finland. In 2002-03 she was an arts worker in residency at Sarai: the New Media Initiative in Delhi, India and was Associate Director for Adelaide Festival 2002. From 1995 to 2000 McDonald Crowley was Director of the Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT), an organization with a national brief to foster links between the arts, sciences and new technology.
Richard Pell [Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute] is a founding member of the highly acclaimed art and engineering collective, the Institute for Applied Autonomy. His work with IAA includes several robotic, web and biologically based projects that call into question the imperatives that drive technological development. IAA projects such as the robotic GraffitiWriter, iSee and TXTmob have been exhibited in art, activist and engineering contexts such as the ZKM in Karlsruhe, Mass MoCA, CAC in Cincinnati, Australian Center for the Moving Image, Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, Hackers On Planet Earth and the International Conference On Robotics And Automation. IAA projects have been chosen for an Award of Distinction and two Honorable Mentions at the Prix-Ars Electronica in Linz, Austria and were recently selected for RES Magazine’s “10 Best New Artists of 2005”.
Edward A. Shanken [Savannah College of Art and Design] is Professor of Art History and Media Theory. He edited a collection of essays by Roy Ascott, entitled Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology and Consciousness (University of California Press, 2003). His essay, Art in the Information Age: Technology and Conceptual Art received honorable mention in the Leonardo Award for Excellence in 2004. He recently edited a special series for Leonardo on the topic, Artists in Industry and the Academy: Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations. Dr. Shanken earned his Ph.D in Art History from Duke (2001) and his MBA from Yale (1990). He has been awarded fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts and the American Council of Learned Societies. He serves as an advisor to the REFRESH! conference, the journal Technoetic Arts, and the Leonardo Pioneers and Pathbreakers.
Workshop Topic: The purpose of the A&D Life workshop is to create space and stimulate a network for dialogue about the relationships between art, design, and the life sciences. Workshop processes can be described as attempts to critically identify and evaluate existing forms, structures, and strategies of creative engagement that span the artistic and life science domains. In these early stages of the organization’s development, the focus of A&D Life is to 1) understand the diversified viewpoints and approaches that structure creative engagement with the life sciences, 2) identify historical and contemporary precedents for work in these areas, 3) employ these theoretical and historical connections as catalysts for creative practices, and 4) register creative work as research that documents the complex, shifting relationships of art practice at the interface of contemporary social and scientific endeavor.
Workshop Coordinator: Gabriel Harp
Faculty Advisor: Patricia Olynyk
Organized with financial support (2005-2007) from the Rackham Graduate School, Office of the Dean for Academic Affairs
Now more than ever, the concepts, practices, and influences of evolutionary biology communicate experiences of evolution in contemporary life and culture. How do we understand these experiences? The mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, migration, mutation, and genetic drift are common in biological systems, yet they are frequently misunderstood. How do we understand and interpret these mechanisms in society? How can we communicate these concepts in ways that also engage our senses?
We broadcast a call for creative work that explores the diversity of forms communicating,commenting on, and engaging mechanisms of evolutionary change and the science of evolutionary biology.
The responses varied. We received submissions largely from artists in six countries and across many different types of media and traditions. In this exhibition, we brought together those works that, through their forms and content, demonstrate the comical, impassioned, and sometimes sublime experiences of everyday evolutionary mechanisms.
