Event Blog 3: Natural History Museum

 Living Knowledge: BioArt and The Two Cultures at the LA Natural History Museum

   

    When I visited the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, I wasn’t just there to look at bones, minerals, or insects, I was stepping into a space where the “Two Cultures” of science and the humanities not only coexist, but collaborate. The museum, with its exhibits ranging from taxidermized mammals to immersive digital experiences, stands as a powerful example of what  we've learned of the “Third Culture”: here there is an ever evolving conversation where art, and science merge to create new better understanding of the natural world, our current place in it, and the times before we walked earth.

Walking through the dinosaur halls and and the gemstone displays, I was struck by how carefully aesthetic design is used to communicate complex scientific ideas. The museum isn’t just about information, it’s about feeling wonder as well. There's a split between the artistic and scientific, NHM offers itself as a model for reunifying them through experience. The building itself is a beautiful work of art with with dramatic art-deco era pillars and statues mixed with modern installations and research zones that were semi-recently added on to the pre-existing structure. 

    

    The NHM reminded me of our module on bio art. We read in the module about how artists who challenge biological classifications through living media, slime molds, genetically modified organisms, tissue cultures. Though NHM doesn’t explicitly display bioart, its exhibits hint at this boundary-blurring: microscopic ecosystems are presented as both data and design, and the visual storytelling is inseparable from the science itself.

    Above is one of the newer exhibitions at NHMLA put in place to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the museum's historic diorama halls. It features immersive installations that highlight dioramas as a unique blend of art and science, it exploring themes of biodiversity, ecology, conservation, and showcases evolving museum display techniques. 

    My visit helped me think differently about my final project, it's allowing me to consider how I could go about treating scientific discovery and visual culture not as separate tools, but rather see them as fundamentally interconnected. Like the museum, I want my work to bridge fields (not to simplify them), but to show how complexity itself can be beautiful.

    Would I recommend NHM? Absolutely. If you’re interested in the natural world, our earths history and how art helps us feel what science reveals—there’s no better place.

Images

1. Taken in main hall

2-4.All taken at the NHM

5. https://news.epson.com/news/los-angeles-natural-history-museum-projectors?utm_source 

6. Photo I took of my entrance band 

References

Levy, Ellen K. Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications. BioArt, 2006. [PDF accessed via class materials].

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 1959. https://archive.org/details/twoculturesscien00snowrich.

Vesna, Victoria. "Toward a Third Culture: Being in between." Leonardo, vol. 34, no. 2, 2001, pp. 121–125. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1576804.

Wilson, Stephen. Art + Science Now: How Scientific Research and Technological Innovation Are Becoming Key to 21st-Century Aesthetics. Thames & Hudson, 2010.
Google Books, https://books.google.com/books/about/Art_Science_Now.html?id=x4TJX7vVLXYC.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. NHMLA, https://nhm.org.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. “Reframing Dioramas.” NHMLA, https://nhm.org/pst-reframing-dioramas.

“Epson Projectors Help Light Up Los Angeles’ Natural History Museum.” Epson Newsroom, 19 Oct. 2023, https://news.epson.com/news/los-angeles-natural-history-museum-projectors?utm_source.

Week 9 | Space+Art

 Week 9 Blog: When Space, Art, and Physics Collide

    This week’s materials were quite intriguing, the topic of space and art at first seemed abstract to me, but this week's resources helped me see how artists and scientists are collaborating to not just explore the cosmos, but to imagine it differently.

    One of the most mind-blowing pieces was the short documentary Powers of Ten (1977), directed by Charles and Ray Eames. The way it zooms out from a couple in a park to the edge of the known universe, then back down to the subatomic level, stuck with me in how it visualized scale so drastically changing our perception of ourselves. It made me think about how art helps us understand complex scientific ideas in ways theory/equations alone can’t.

    The UCLA Plasma & Space Physics Lab gave me a grounding in the real, physical research that makes our exploration of space possible. Seeing how magnetic fields, charged particles, and plasma all play roles in space weather reminded me that even the most abstract cosmic visuals are rooted in real data. It made me appreciate the “craft” behind both the science and the images we see in space art.

    That idea was echoed in Brian Holmes’ article Coded Utopia, where he explains how certain digital artworks use spatial data and planetary modeling to critique or reimagine societal structures. Holmes makes the point that “space is not neutral” how we visualize it reflects our values, fears, and politics. This shifted my understanding of space art as not just decorative or imaginative, but as philosophical and critical.

    The Leonardo Space Art Project (hosted by the International Association of Astronomical Artists) was probably my favorite discovery this week. I really liked how the site showcases artists who imagine life, landscapes, and structures beyond Earth. Many of the images blend scientific accuracy with creative speculation, like orbital habitats or Martian skies painted with Earth Like detail. 

    Finally, I looked at the work of KSEVT Slovenia’s Cultural Centre of European Space Technologies. Their approach is totally interdisciplinary, bringing together engineers, architects, and artists to collaborate on space-based design. KSEVT reminds me that the future of space isn’t just about rockets and physics. It’s about meaning. How will we live? What kind of society will we build beyond Earth?

Images/Videos

1.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invisible-numbers-are-the-most-beautiful-part-of-every-space-image/

2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0&t=2s

3.https://www.archdaily.com/310664/cultural-center-of-eu-space-technologies-dekleva-gregoric-arhitekti-sadar-vuga-ofis-architects-bevk-perovic-arhitekti 

References

Eames, Charles, and Ray Eames, directors. Powers of Ten. IBM Corporation, 1977. YouTube, uploaded by The Eames Office, 3 Mar. 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0&t=2s.

Holmes, Brian. “Coded Utopia.” Continental Drift, 27 Mar. 2007, https://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/coded-utopia/.

KSEVT – Cultural Centre of European Space Technologies. KSEVT, https://www.ksevt.eu/about.

Leonardo Space Art Project. International Association of Astronomical Artists, https://spaceart.org/leonardo/vision.html.

UCLA Plasma & Space Physics Laboratory. Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, https://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/.

Week 8 Nanotechnology + Art

Blog Post: The Art of Shrinking Science—DNA Origami, Nanotech, and the Future of Innovation

    This week’s materials brought the invisible world of nanotechnology to vivid life. The TED Talk by Paul Rothemund on DNA folding I found especially interesting. Watching DNA be manipulated into through “DNA origami” made abstract science tactile. Rothemund's work highlighted how the principles of art and design converge with biology, it illustrated for me what's possible on the molecular scale, and how aesthetics and precision matter in science.

DNA Folding

    The NOVA documentary "Making Stuff: Smaller" expanded my interest. Seeing nanobots, smart dust, and lab-on-a-chip technologies showed real-world applications of what Rothemund’s TED Talk introduced. It's pretty astonishing how much power we can packed into the tiniest devices. What struck me most was how these developments are already influencing medicine, computing, and energy.

    Ray Kurzweil’s TED Talk on a coming singularity pushed this week’s ideas into the realm of more futuristic speculation. Kurzweil believes nanotech will help us merge with machines. While his optimism is fascinating, it also raised questions for me about ethics, and identity, issues that artists and writers have long explored. In all I was skeptical of the ideas I'd say. 

Singularity

    As well the article “The Nanomeme Syndrome” provided a critical lens, reminding me that behind every utopian narrative is a hype cycle. It compared nanotech’s media presence to science fiction, encouraging more grounded, thoughtful analysis. Similarly, the "art in the age of nanotechnology" reading explored the cultural and philosophical implications of manipulating matter at the nanoscale, linking nano-images to surrealist art. This reading deepened my appreciation for how visualization drives innovation.

NanoArt Montage

    Together, this weeks materials expanded my understanding of nanotechnology not just as a technical field, but as an intersection of science, art, and further how our society can develop along side these innovations. It makes me think however as we design smaller and think bigger, we must keep asking ourselves "just because we can, should we?".

Images

1.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-hierarchical-steps-of-DNA-folding-into-chromatin-1-DNA-2-10-nm-fiber-and-3_fig1_330579336 

2.https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/technology/silicon-valley-confronts-the-idea-that-the-singularity-is-here.html

3. Courtesy of NanoArt 21 

References 

•     Rothemund, Paul. “DNA Folding in Detail.” TED, Feb. 2007, https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_rothemund_dna_folding_in_detail?language=en. Accessed 21 May 2025.
•     Making Stuff: Smaller. Directed by Chris Schmidt, narrated by David Pogue, PBS NOVA, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2011, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/making-stuff/#making-stuff-smaller. Accessed 21 May 2025.
•     Kurzweil, Ray. “A University for the Coming Singularity.” TED, Feb. 2009, https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_a_university_for_the_coming_singularity?language=en. Accessed 21 May 2025.
•     Vesna, Victoria, and Jim Gimzewski. “The Nanomeme Syndrome: Blurring of Fact & Fiction in the Construction of a New Science.” Art Journal, vol. 61, no. 3, 2002. PDF file.
•     Paul, Christian. Art in the Age of Nanotechnology. JCG-1008-NANO, 2008. PDF file.

Event 2 Blog: 24hr Unplug

24hr Unplug Challenge!

    Last Tuesday, I took on the 24-hour unplugged challenge: no phone, no laptop, no TV, nothing digital. Just me, my notebook, and the weirdly quiet world around me. I thought it would be hard, but I didn’t expect how hard or how fruitful it would actually feel at times, too.

Morning

    I started my morning by turning off my phone and tossing it into a drawer. The silence was immediate. No dings, no vibrations, no random notifications pulling my attention. At first, it felt kind of peaceful, like the world slowed down a little. I made breakfast without watching a video or checking social media/messages. I actually noticed how my food tasted haha. I had a morning class, so I walked like I normally do and took notes in my notepad (I normally use docs on my laptop).

My Notes From Class (haven't handwritten notes since high school!)

 Midday

    By midday, things started to get a little trickier. I kept reaching for my phone out of pure habit, only to remember it wasn’t there. I didn’t realize how often I use my phone just to fill space. Waiting for the kettle to boil? Usually I scroll. Walking to the store? Normally there’s music or a podcast. Without that, my brain just... wandered. It was uncomfortable at first, but eventually kind of nice. Luckily I live with my boyfriend so before my next class he walked with me to Upside Down for some matcha.

Doing a Puzzle While I Waited for Matcha

Evening    

    Evening was by far the hardest. That’s when I’d normally relax with a show or call friends. But instead, I picked up a book I’ve been meaning to read forever and actually made a dent in it. I tried making buffalo cauliflower without a recipe (it came out weird). I also lit a candle, and did some stretching/yoga. I had no idea how long the night felt without screens.

    Before bed I did a sort of meditation, I don’t know if I did it “right,” but just sitting in the quiet and breathing for a bit helped settle me down to go to sleep. Usually I just scroll on my phone until I get tired.

Photo my Boyfriend Took of my Attempted Buffalo Cauliflower.

My Thoughts    

    Unplugging for a day reminded me that boredom isn’t always bad, it can be a gateway to creativity. I ended up generating more ideas in my sketchbook that day than I have in a while and being disconnected gave me a clearer head, which I think will help me approach my final project with more intention and originality.

    I highly recommend doing this challenge. It makes you look more closely at the world around you and at your own thoughts without the constant digital noise. Even if you don’t do the full 24 hours, just a few hours unplugged might surprise you. I think I’ll start implementing moments of unplugged to try and ease the mind and connect more with whats around me.

Images (Taken by BF on his Digital Camera)

1. Sanikhatam, R (May 15), My notes taken after the unplug

2. Sickels, A (May 13), Puzzle while I wait for matcha

3. Sickels, A (May 13), My messed up buffalo cauliflower

References about unplugging

SummaCare. “The Power of Unplugging: 6 Health Benefits of Spending Time Offline.” SummaCare, 13 Sept. 2024, https://www.summacare.com/blog/entries/2024/09/the-power-of-unplugging-6-health-benefits-of-spending-time-offline. Accessed 15 May 2025.

Parker, Joe. “Could a ‘Digital Diet’ Help Me Fix My Bad Phone Habits?” The Guardian, 17 May 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/17/could-a-digital-diet-help-me-fix-my-bad-phone-habits. Accessed 15 May 2025.

Davidson, Brittany, et al. “The Effects of Partaking in a Two-Week Social Media Digital Detox.” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, 2024, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10740995. Accessed 15 May 2025.

Adventist Health. “The Benefits of Unplugging from Electronics.” Adventist Health, 27 Mar. 2019, https://www.adventisthealth.org/blog/2019/march/the-benefits-of-unplugging-from-electronics. Accessed 17 May 2025.

Orlando Treatment Solutions. “How Constant Connectivity Affects Mental Health.” Orlando Treatment Solutions, https://orlandotreatmentsolutions.com/how-constant-connectivity-affects-mental-health. Accessed 17 May 2025.

Week 7 Neuroscience and Art

The Brain as Art and Self

    This week’s materials helped me see neuroscience not just as science, but as something deeply personal and artistic. I was most influenced by the reading Neuroculture by Giovanni Frazzetto and Suzanne Anker. It introduced me to the idea that brain images, like fMRI scans, aren’t just diagnostic tools; they’ve become symbols of identity, consciousness, and even beauty. That idea stuck with me. It made me think about how much we rely on neuroscience to define what it means to be ourselves.

    In Cristina Albu’s article on neuroaesthetics, she talks about how artists like Susan Aldworth and Suzanne Anker use brain imagery in their work to reflect on what it means to have a mind. Anker’s fMRI Butterfly series was especially memorable. She overlays symmetrical inkblots and butterfly images on real fMRI scans, challenging us to question how we interpret brain data. I never realized that even "scientific" brain images are open to perception and emotion, just like art.

MRI butterfly exhibition

    Watching the lecture videos also helped me connect these ideas visually. Seeing how artists resist the idea that brain scans tell the whole story about who we are. I found that powerful. It reminded me that while science can describe the brain’s activity, it doesn’t always capture our thoughts, emotions, or histories.

    Howard Gardner’s book Art, Mind, and Brain also gave me a different perspective. He argues that art isn’t just decoration/aesthetics; it’s rather a form of cognition. That really resonated with me. As a student, I’m used to thinking that knowledge comes from lectures and textbooks, but Gardner reminded me that making and experiencing art can be just as intellectually deep. It’s how we process, remember, and even heal.

    What I’m taking away from this week is that neuroscience doesn’t belong only to medicine. It’s everywhere; on gallery walls, in video art, and in how we think about mental health; art isn’t just reflecting science; it’s challenging it, reframing it, and making it more human.

Images

-https://www.suzanneanker.com/artwork/mri-butterfly 

-https://www.gregadunn.com/about/  

-https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-top-entries-in-the-art-of-neuroscience-competition1/

Refrences

    Albu, Cristina. “Neuroaesthetic Enchantments: Art and the Plasticity of the Brain.” Comparative Media Arts Journal, issue 10, Simon Fraser University, https://www.sfu.ca/cmajournal/issues/issue-ten--enchantment--disenchantment--reenchantment/cristina-albu.html.

    Frazzetto, Giovanni, and Suzanne Anker. “Neuroculture.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 11, 2009, pp. 815–821.

    Gardner, Howard. Art, Mind, and Brain: A Cognitive Approach to Creativity. Basic Books, 1982.

    Suzanne Anker. fMRI Butterfly Series. https://www.suzanneanker.com/artwork/mri-butterfly.

    UCOnline. “Lecture part 1–3.” YouTube, 4 Mar. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5EX75xoBJ0.

    Fionna M. D. Samuels & Liz Tormes. “Top Entries in the Art of Neuroscience Competition.” Scientific American, 18 May 2011, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-top-entries-in-the-art-of-neuroscience-competition1/.

Week 6 | BioTech+Art

Week 6 Biotech and Art: Bioart and the Boundaries of Life 

    This week’s materials reshaped how I think about biology, creativity, and ethics. What stood out to me most was Ellen K. Levy’s Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications, Anthony Atala’s TED Talk “Growing New Organs,” and the film Soylent Green (1973). Together with the YouTube videos on transgenic art and synthetic biology, they forced me to confront unsettling but fascinating questions: What is life? Who owns it? Can it be art?

    Levy’s essay dives into how artists use biotechnology not just to imitate life, but to create it. The slime mold, capable of acting as both individual and swarm, becomes a metaphor for flexible identity and collective agency. Artists like Stelarc, who implanted an Extra Ear onto his arm, and Eduardo Kac, who engineered a fluorescent rabbit named Alba, are exploring the literal boundary between human and non-human. Levy makes the point that these artistic practices challenge long-held categories like nature vs. culture, organism vs. machine, art vs. science and that these categories carry legal and economic weight.

Anthony Atala’s TED Talk made those ideas even more concrete. Watching him “print” a kidney using a bioprinter wasn’t just revolutionary, it was utterly eerie. Is life itself a valid expressive medium? In Atala’s case, life is not only expressive but potentially lifesaving. But what happens when life is modified not for survival, but for aesthetics, curiosity, or commentary?

    That’s where Soylent Green adds a chilling perspective. The 1973 film explores a world where bodies are commodified to the extreme; being turned into food. It’s sci-fi, but disturbingly relevant. Watching it after reading Levy’s account of genetically engineered animals, tissue cultures, and “semi-living” art made me realize how close we already are to those ethical lines. Projects like Kathy High’s Embracing Animal, (an installation using cancer-prone lab rats in a nurturing setting) call into question the rights of living organisms used in research.

    The TedTalk and Lecture videos also gave me a broader view of this emerging field. They highlight how artists and researchers alike may use things like CRISPR, cloning, and synthetic DNA not just as tools, but as symbols. This raises another key question: Should the restrictions be more or less stringent for artists than for scientists? In my view, artists working with biotech should adhere to ethical standards but also be free to provoke, critique, and expose.

    In the end, this week taught me that creativity, when paired with biotechnology, can be powerful, poetic, yet potentially dangerous. There may be limits to human creativity, but defining those limits is itself a creative, cultural act.

References 

Atala, Anthony. Growing New Organs. TED, Mar. 2011, www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_growing_new_organs. Accessed 8 May 2025.

Soylent Green. Directed by Richard Fleischer, performances by Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1973.

Levy, Ellen K. “Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications.” BioArt, 2006. PDF.

“5 BioArt part 1-5.” UC Online, uploaded by UC Online, 12 May. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EpD3np1S2g. Accessed 8 May 2025.

High, Kathy. Embracing Animal. 2004–2006, www.kathyhigh.com/projects/embracing-animal/. Accessed 8 May 2025.

Images

https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/cindy-stelmackowich/  

https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/bioart-in-person-eduardo-kac-transgenic-art/ 

https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/dr-anthony-atala-md-new-body-parts-the-shape-of-things-to-come-38654 

https://www.kathyhigh.com/videos/embracing-animal/ 

Event 1 Blog: The Huntington

The Huntington: Where Art and Science Meet

    Last Week I had the pleasure of visiting Huntington Garden and Library in Pasadena. The Huntington Library, Art Museum and Botanical Gardens, is a collections-based educational and research institution established by the Huntingtons all the way back in 1911. Over the years Huntington has collected not only scientific books and research but as well botanical species from all over the world.

Walking through the Huntington Gardens and Library felt like stepping into the physical manifestation of C.P. Snow’s “Two Cultures”, and something more. On one side, you have the lush botanical gardens, carefully cultivated but undeniably poetic, an ode to aesthetics and sensory experience. On the other, the library and museum house centuries of scientific texts, data, and discoveries, ever disciplined, rational, and empirical. But what struck me most was not the contrast, but how seamlessly these worlds coexist.

The experience reminds me of Victoria Vesna’s essay “Toward a Third Culture” where its argued that artists using technology create a new cultural space, one that bridges science, art, and the humanities through collaboration and conversation. The Huntington is exactly this kind of space. Its very design encourages movement between beauty and data, nature and structure, emotion and evidence. Sitting in the gardens with a view of the research library, I felt like I was literally between the two cultures an idea Vesna calls both "a privileged and a dangerous position".

Even without stepping into a specific exhibit, the Huntington makes a case for synthesis. Scientific understanding informs how we tend gardens; aesthetic appreciation deepens how we experience scientific texts. The Third Culture emerges not as a compromise, but as a kind of dialogue creating this active, evolving space where disciplines don’t just meet but make something new.

I’d definitely recommend this spot to classmates, especially if you're looking for inspiration that lives at the intersection of curiosity and craft. The gardens are beautiful and extremely peaceful, the multiple interesting exhibits and library have some fascinating pieces of history, and they have a hands-on greenhouse that was really cool to explore. 

References

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 1959. 

The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens. "The Huntington." 2024, https://www.huntington.org.

Vesna, Victoria. "Toward a Third Culture: Being in between." Leonardo, vol. 34, no. 2, 2001, pp. 121–125.

“The Science-Art-Sky Activity Guide.” The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens.

Thompson, Diana W. “Hearing NASA’s Earth Science Satellites.” Verso, The Huntington, 2018. https://www.huntington.org/verso/2018/08/hearing-nasa’s-earth-science-satellites. 

All photos were taken on my phone or digicam

Week 4: Medicine + Technology + Art

MRI

    Until recently, I saw medical imaging as something purely diagnostic, an objective window into the body. But this week’s course materials invited me to rethink that assumption, especially through the lens of art and expression. What if imaging technologies like MRIs are not just tools for medicine, but also mirrors that shape how we see ourselves?

Examples of Didou's work

    

    Silvia Casini’s essay on MRI revealed something I’d never considered: MRIs are not only visual, they’re also acoustic. The machine's rhythmic pulsing, the isolation inside the scanner, and the communication between patient and technician all form a sensory experience. Artists like Marc Didou have used MRI not for medical diagnosis but for personal expression, transforming the scan from a clinical artifact into a kind of expression of self.

    Donald Ingber’s article, The Architecture of Life, added another layer to my understanding. He describes how life is structured through principles like tensegrity, a balance of tension and compression. This architecture appears everywhere in the human body, from cytoskeletons to organs. Understanding how cells are physically “wired” helps explain not just form, but function and even gene expression. That insight links biology to design and, unexpectedly, to sculpture.

Genetic Architecture

The ethical side of medical technology was brought into sharp focus in the PBS article on the modern Hippocratic Oath. While the original oath emphasized not doing harm, today's versions have to recognize the complexities of technology, consent, and empathy. As technology becomes more advanced and in a sense more intimate, it seems that so must our responsibility to patients as whole people, not just bodies to scan.

Reflecting on all this, I’m beginning to see MRI not just as a window into the body, but as a mirror that reflects identity, vulnerability, and even creativity. Through sound and structure, art and ethics, the medical image is no longer neutral and cold but rather personal in scope.

Refrences:

Casini, Silvia. Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Mirror and Portrait: MRI Configurations between Science and the Arts. Configurations, vol. 19, no. 1, 2011, pp. 73–99. Johns Hopkins University Press, https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2011.0000.

Didou, Marc. “Marc Didou: Resonances.” Digicult, curated by Claudia D’Alonzo, Digicult, 6 Oct. 2007, https://digicult.it/design/marc-didou-resonances/.

Ingber, Donald E. “The Architecture of Life.” Scientific American, vol. 278, no. 1, Jan. 1998.

Joyce, Kelly. “Appealing Images: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Production of Authoritative Knowledge.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2004, University of Michigan, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7523862.0008.022.

Nova. “The Hippocratic Oath Today.” PBS, WGBH Educational Foundation, 27 Mar. 2001, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/hippocratic-oath-today/.

Photos:

1- https://www.embs.org/pulse/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/08/Ultra-High-to-Ultra-Low-MRI-Goes-to-Extremes.jpg 

2&3- https://digicult.it/design/marc-didou-resonances/ 

4-ingber_architecture-of-life.pdf

5-https://www.coreimpactstrategy.com/article/hippocratic-marketing-oath 

Week 3: Robotics & Art

This module brings to mind the rapid rise of AI-generated art and how that challenges the very heart of artistic identity. In the age of mechanization and robotics, can a robot truly create art? Or are we simply seeing the latest wave in the ongoing disruption of the aura of authenticity?

AI and Human Art

Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction warned us that mass production would erode art’s “aura” , its uniqueness rooted in time, place, and ritual. As he argued, “what withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art”​. I’d say that in today’s digital world, this idea is more urgent than ever. Douglas Davis expands Benjamin’s concern in The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction, claiming “there is no longer a clear conceptual distinction between original and reproduction”​

Whether it's a Rembrandt painted by a human hand or a surrealist piece conjured by AI, both seemingly circulate with equal weight online. It reminds me of a video I saw a while back where participants were asked to guess whether images are human or machine-made. A large portion often couldn't tell. This reflects our shifting perception: when everything is reproducible, intent may outweigh origin. I’d say at this current point I’m still able to devise whether something is authentic or AI but it seems that reality passes with each coming day. Can you tell the difference below? (answers are at the bottom)

Comparison AI vs Human Art

Comparison AI vs Human Abstract

This dilemma also remind me of the same ideas in the movie Her (2013), where the AI Samantha composes music and writes letters evoking deep emotion without a physical presence. Like AI art, her creations beg the question: is emotion the foundation to constitute authorship? And are we able to create machines that can create authenticity?

Still from Her

It seems that in today’s society we respond to industrialization and automation with both anxiety and awe. We’re fascinated by what machines can do, yet unsettled by what they replace. Perhaps, as Davis suggests, the aura hasn’t vanished it has migrated, now residing in how we respond, remix, and reframe the art around us. In my personal belief, I don't uphold AI art as being original or remotely capturing what makes art, art. It lacks that intent, that emotional and deeply personal touch that is unique to the human experience. Perhaps it can be used as tool in conjunction with artistic expression but as we seemingly begin to rely heavily on AI for our creation in multiple fields, I'm uncertain where the future takes us for better or worse.  

(The right side of both images were AI generated) 

References:

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. 1936. Translated by Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 2008. https://monoskop.org/images/4/4c/Benjamin_Walter_1936_2008_The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Its_Technological_Reproducibility_and_Other_Writings_on_Media.pdf

Davis, Douglas. "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (An Evolving Thesis: 1991–1995)." Leonardo, vol. 28, no. 5, 1995, pp. 381–386. JSTOR, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-094X%281995%2928%3A5%3C381%3ATWOAIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

Her. Directed by Spike Jonze, performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson, Annapurna Pictures, 2013.

Kelley, Ben. "AI Art vs Human Art: Can You Tell the Difference?" Gold Penguin, 21 Apr. 2023, https://goldpenguin.org/blog/ai-vs-human-art/.

VICE News. Pindar Van Arman Is Teaching Robot Artists To Paint Like Humans. YouTube, 10 Aug. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkTjEi7O4Ic.

Image Sources:

https://deepdreamgenerator.com/blog/ai-art-originality

"AI Art vs Human Art: Can You Tell the Difference?" Gold Penguin

Still from Her (2013)