An exhibit at MoMA is exploring the intersections of art and science - one of the exhibits - a "living" and growing collection of mouse stem cells fashioned into a teeny coat - was growing too quickly and had begun clogging the incubator.
The curator decided to pull the plug - NYT article here.
I don't know how I feel about this, but if art is meant to provoke thought and reaction - they have certainly succeeded.
What's uncomfortable for me regarding this and with other similar projects (Alba the glow in the dark bunny) is the intent.
And I wonder if that's really a logical thought process.
Because my mind immediately did this when I read the article:
Experimental processes + life forms ------> Scientific breakthrough = Good
Experimental process + life forms --------> Artistic statement = Questionable
Does that mean that I think a negative outcome caused by experimental processes is less heinous if it was in the name of science than in the name of art - because I think that's what creating the high ick factor for me - the potential negative outcome.
So do I think that scientific innovation is more worthwhile than artistic innovation...? Do I think artistic innovation is for sport as opposed to true learning...?
Hmmm....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment