From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Aug 29 2001 - 11:02:55 MDT
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:11:22AM -0700, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 8/29/01 +0200, you wrote:
> >It is interesting to note that the journal Nature has a section for art
> >in science / science in art. I wonder how many art journals have that?
>
> Leonardo magazine has been around for many years. It's excellent. Nature
> tends approaches art and science in a more traditional way.
Yes, Leonardo is a good example (and to my delight I see that the silly
domain lawsuit has been dropped now). But I still have a nagging
suspicion that it is mainly read by the people already interested in
combining art and science; what is its "impact factor" on the art
community/communities in general?
> >The renaissance involved trying to create something new that unified the
> >old knowledge with the new scientific/economic/artistic discoveries, and
> >then change society accordingly (although this later part only really
> >got underway during the enlightenment). I see many similarities with
> >today: we need a new renaissance to unify the old knowledge with the new
> >discoveries and then find ways of changing our societies accordingly.
>
> This is the new Enlightenment (transhumanity) which Greg presented about at
> Extro-5, Max wrote about in Exponent, and I presented at Extro-2.
Sure, I am merely reiterating the same concept. But I think it needs to
be restated again and again among ourselves, so that more of us actually
go out and create this Enlightenment. While there are many stellar
examples of both renaissance persons and people actively promoting the
new enlightenment among us, there should be far more people doing it!
> The best way to "infiltrate" the environments which you are referring to is
> to be there. It is not a game plan, it is a presence. Ideas permeate best
> at the comfort zone level where people do not feel pressured. Going into
> an environment and pushing an agenda is usually met with a counter force.
> Going in an introducing an agenda through persuasive credibility and a
> collaborative spirit is usually met with a welcome.
This is true. Often people are intrigued by unusual fresh new ideas, and
if they can be shown to mesh not just with the local cultural context
but with other locally unexplored but important fields, they acquire an
even higher relevance. It is easier for the trader bringing exotic
goods, news and a good story than the invader with a battering ram to
get into the memetic castle of people.
That is why I have noticed many transhumanists who are active in
spreading transhumanism are refraining quite deliberately from
mentioning transhumanism unless asked. Sugegsting that these ideas are
part of a big system often creates a counterforce.
> Art today is not what it was in the Renaissance. In fact, most people do
> not recognize or realize what art is today. It is the understanding and
> acceptance of what the symbol of today's technology presents in regards to
> culture and what those of use who are transhumanists and other futurists
> actually think about. The art that reflects this may not be plentiful, but
> it is art nonetheless. The art that reflects this may not look or fell
> like art of the past, but it is art nonetheless. the art that reflects
> this may not even be available to critique because it is still being
> conceptualized, but it is art nonetheless. The art that reflects this may
> be so ordinary that we don't even consider it art, but it is art
> nonetheless. One of my most favored pieces of sculpture today is the Seti
> Telescope. Some of the most interesting art today is done digitally and
> exhibited on the Internet, or in the think-tanks of scientific laboratories.
>
> We cannot view art by the museum's standards or the standards of the
> mundane critic who is looking under rocks with a flashlight for new art.
> If so, we might as well get on the stagecoach and head back across the
> Rockies.
Exactly. But the problem is of course that so many of today's
intellectuals and people involved in art are not looking for this new
art or appreciating it when they see it. The fact that there are people
who get it doesn't mean that the "art of technology" is widely
appreciated, of that appreciation of it can spread easily. This is also
an aspect we have to remedy. Any thoughts on the best inroads into
culture in this respect?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:13 MST