From: natashavita@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Aug 29 2001 - 15:33:57 MDT
(If this dups, please forgive server.)
Anders wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:11:22AM -0700, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>>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? <
Another magazine is Daedalus, produced by the Academy of Arts and Sciences: “Founded in 1780, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is an international learned society composed of the world's leading scientists, scholars, artists, business people, and public leaders. With a current membership of 3,700 American Fellows and 600 Foreign Honorary Members ...”
Recent Accomplishments:
1/22/01 Academy Members Win Wolf Prizes in Medicine and the Arts
1/15/01 Sharpless Awarded Wolf Prize in Chemistry
1/8/01 Two Academy Foreign Honorary Members Share Wolf Prize in Mathematics
There are museums throughout the world that focus on arts and sciences. MOAS, located in US in Florida, is a good example
There is also the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, which is impressive. Then there is the Academy Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: The largest media-mongering business in the world sponsors, promotes and exhibits the art and sciences – film and television -- of this era. There is a Scientific and Technical Awards database for motion picture community, educators, students as useful research tool. This site contains data on the Scientific and Technical Awards (for arts) that date from 1930 to the present.
>>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!<
Actions speak louder than most words. Each and every time any of us is recognized in our fields for adding the positive spread of transhumanity, we are adding to the new Enlightenment. Give yourself some time. You will be out of school soon and making your own contributions in the professional arena. Each person must experience his or her own maturation of enlightenment. It cannot be pushed or forced.
Some are able to make contributions early in their (chronological) lives, others later. Some fortunate beings just keep rolling out contributions. Sometimes I wish things happened quicker (most importantly ways to stop aging), but then I am happy that each week I get more and more signees of the Manifesto. It’s a matter of individual choice: I could do art and be an elitist and only pander to the museums and galleries and critics, but I didn’t. I chose to design a mode of art that would spread ideas about transhumanity. Fortunately, it was an honest choice and one that is fulfilling my wish. I’d rather be part of the process of my own art than work to create something just for the name of it. But it is not to say that it wouldn’t be a good idea.
Fast-Track: If a person is an entrepreneur, she or he might be able to do it on fast-track. Like a new product, invent it, design it (giving full credit to the art department -) and market the hell out of it. Just like the blue jean or the new body language used by the hip-hop rap culture, it will catch on if its “out there” enough and is low-cost and sexy. I am continually thinking of slogans, product, movements, etc, to latch on (I wrote “ So cool it’s cryo” which started to catch on in the 90s, but then didn’t go anywhere). It’s unfortunate we don’t have a new bright hot rapper to sing out the transhumanist tune, but negativity and lude language is in for the moment.
Inasmuch, it seems to me an authentic, an honest new Enlightenment will occur because it is a chain reaction of memetic engineering and intelligence. I’d rather it come about because it is authentic rather than being plotted like a bunch of realtors trying to sell off some land for the next new development.
>>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.<
Yes! -- Now you are envisioning “action.”
>That is why I have noticed many transhumanists who are active in
spreading transhumanism are refraining quite deliberately from
mentioning transhumanism unless asked. Suggesting that these ideas are
part of a big system often creates a counterforce.<
Well, I don't know of anyone who is doing this intentionally. Who would you suggest is holding back? Let me see -- okay, let's consider Kurzweil, Minsky, Walford or Drexler. They are extropians, but they are also representing their own work which they accomplished prior to being extropian transhsumanists, so it would stand to reason that they don't use the phrase, but I don't think its intentional.
>>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.<
I think they are, but they are more interested in other aspects of it. Just as some people go to a movie as a past time, others go to study the direction, the acting, the animation, the editing, the lighting, etc. Just as some people read SF as a past time, others read it to glean some inside information, or study the style.
I agree with you that the "art of technology" isn't widely appreciated. I think this has a lot to do with the money people (producers) getting recognized rather than the animators, for example. (Speilberg is far more recognized than Ann Backstone in the animating room; or Gates far more than Bill Penman in the programming dept.)
>Any thoughts on the best inroads into culture in this respect?<
Supply and demand. Create an intellectual demand for it. For example, start talking about it more often. Talk about it as the force behind the Singularity or the innovations in AI.
My wish is that “Primo” continues to evolve, that Extropy Institute keeps getting referenced, that all of the writers we know produce books that are best sellers, that all the musicians we know get a hits, that all the scientists we know get the acknowledgement, the money and the go-ahead, etc.
Best,
Natasha
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at
http://www.mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:14 MST