io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 9:51 PM
Mon Dec 7
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/05/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Not if you can't eat a bullet.
12/04/09
With the exception of the white arm, I honestly don't think the others have any meaning or any message, unless the message of "I use to divide by zero" is that the artist failed his elementary math courses in school.
As for "I use to taste neutrinos", what is that supposed to mean? I could put "I eat quarks for breakfast" in front of some space picture. Is that art? I hardly think so.
To me, these only show the artist's defiant ignorance of basic science, as if he's saying "Look, I don't know basic science, and I'm proud of it!"
12/04/09
It does make you sound kind of badass though.
12/04/09
No, I'm not stalking your comments.
12/04/09
1. Neutrinos taste great. At least that is what I am told by my E taking friends...
2. I used to divide by zero. Until the crushing realities of the world ripped me out of childhood, into adolescence, and further into a burgeoning cynical adulthood. When I was a kid I could do anything.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
"It does make you sound kind of badass though"
Hahaha... I wish. Truth be told, quarks give me a stomach ache. :)
12/04/09
"Neutrinos have 3 "flavors"...so thats probably what it is being alluded to."
Ok, point taken. I still don't think that the artist's work is art or is even funny, though.
"No, I'm not stalking your comments"
But I might be stalking yours...
(cue in evil laughter)
12/04/09
"E taking friends" ??
12/04/09
"after we die our wathans drift in eternity, becoming a godly collective. Being able to taste neutrinos and divide by zero"
If that's your opinion, I respect it, but I also disagree with it.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
We have enough of science butchery already, in TV shows, movies, advertisements, new age crap, religion, and the opinion among the general population that being a nerd is somehow a disease.
12/04/09
Could that be what he is going for? Is that his "art"?
12/04/09
I don't understand your point. Please clarify.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Neutrinos don't interact with normal matter...
There is no mathematical operation to divide by zero...
Saying that (a) My tastebuds can interact with neutrinos or (b) I was once capable of dividing by zero implies that he is something special.
However, to be able to MAKE that sort of statement he would have to know that (a) neutrinos don't interact with normal matter and (b) you can't divide by zero.
If he were simply ignorant of these facts, or, as you propose, he is celebrating his lack of knowledge of basic science - his "art" would have been entirely more bland. Something on the order of "The Sun is Hot and so am I" or "Calculus is you plus me equals us" (Thank you MTV)
My point - which is much less valuable than the amount of energy I have used to explain it - is that his art is trying to say that he is special by using some (possibly) esoteric science and math facts as proof...
#calendar
12/04/09
"Neutrinos don't interact with normal matter..."
Actually, they do, only *extremely* weakly.
"However, to be able to MAKE that sort of statement he would have to know that (a) neutrinos don't interact with normal matter and (b) you can't divide by zero."
Not necessarily. Neutrinos, black holes, quarks, and many other well-defined concepts in physics have become buzzwords that many people in the general population have heard of but have little or no understanding about.
"If he were simply ignorant of these facts, or, as you propose, he is celebrating his lack of knowledge of basic science - his "art" would have been entirely more bland. Something on the order of "The Sun is Hot and so am I" or "Calculus is you plus me equals us"
I have to admit that my hypothesis that the artist is celebrating her ignorance is a bit farfetched. In fact, I think your suggestion that she's ignorant of those facts and, therefore, her art is just bland is much more likely to be true.
"his art is trying to say that he is special by using some (possibly) esoteric science and math facts as proof..."
And that's the source of my hostility. Butchering or misusing science doesn't make one special. Rather, it makes one appear stupid.
Consider this counter-example, of the singer, song-writer, and musician Katie Melua. Rather than explain it myself, I'll let Michael Shermer do it. Watch the entire talk if you like (it's quite good) but the part I'm referring to starts at the 12-minute mark.
See, there is an example of an artist who is celebrating science the right away. Butchering it is not the way to appear special.
12/05/09
Furthermore, beyond your desire for art to convey some deeper meaning or insight, what would you define art as? All art. What is the definition of art? Is it creating with purpose? Surely some great works have come from mistakes, and serendipitous moments (case in point, the work of Jackson Pollok). Rather, I prefer to think of art as 'the act of expressive creation'. Therefore, how can you fault it? How can any art be invalid? True, it can be disagreeable to some, but only the artist can deny it the title of 'art'.
I hope this wasn't taken as a flame; it was not my intention, only intellectual retort.
12/05/09
"I hope this wasn't taken as a flame"
Not at all. I appreciate the exchange of ideas, even (and particularly) when they disagree with my own views, because that's the only way I can expand my horizons.
To the issue at hand...
So, if I simply throw a bucket of paint onto a wall, is that art? Am I allowed to call it art because I expressed some whatever feeling when I did it? Can I charge lots of money for it? Sorry, I don't think so.
Again, others may disagree. This is merely my view.
12/05/09
Looking at Melua's first cut of her song - the scientifically incorrect one - and the second cut of her song - the "accurate" one - I feel I need to point a few tiny things out.
(1) From a "musical" -- you could also read that as "poetical" or even "artistic" -- standpoint, the accurate cut was of substantially poorer quality. Meter was off, rhyme scheme was flawed and the emotive impact was substantially lessened by inclusion of hyper-accurate statements.
Granted, I am applying rules of aesthetics that are fungible at best, and art is, in no way, required to conform to any static definition.
However, were we to assume that (a) Music - especially love songs - are designed to create / impart / cause an emotional reaction and (b) the success of this purpose is more important than the tools used to evoke it then I would be lead to the following conclusion: The more scientifically accurate her song got, the more it resembled an academic paper - with all the tear-jerking abilities those traditionally have - and the less it was a ballad of love and devotion.
In brief, the accurate version sucked.
(2) Comedic impact: You will note that the audience failed to laugh at the first version of the song, but did laugh at the second. Why is that?
I am not a humorist, I do not study the delicacies of laughter, but I will posit an explanation. They laughed because it caused an amusing dissonance within them. Love songs are not supposed to be held to the same standards of rigorous accuracy as papers concerning astrophysics. Experiencing a love song trying to be scientifically precise creates a cognitive dissonance within the observers which they humorous.
It is precisely BECAUSE it is trying to be something the observers know that it is not that makes it funny.
I donno, man, it seems like this a further example of either humor or art capturing a cognitive dissonance in the observer that allows the object d'art to BE something other than a bland tautology.
Having said ALL of the preceding. I do think I get your point.
We are intelligent people capable of incredible feats of artistic ingenuity. Why make art that contains within it deliberate flaws when we are capable of making great art sans flaws?
12/05/09
most artists never reach the heights of fame and fortune in their lifetimes, and yet, that does not seem to deter anyone.
What great meaning or message does the Mona Lisa convey, specifically?
Art inherently is an abstraction. Any piece or body of work can never hope to express the exact hopes and dreams of everyone who looks upon it. It can never be the exact reflection of everyone's thoughts on a particular matter. And that's where its power lies, by inviting the audience to draw their own conclusions, to instigate thought and discussion. In fact, to do exactly what we are doing right now. hmm.. not bad for stuff that's supposedly 'not art'...
Long story short, art is creative self expression, not the creative expression of everyone else. So, yeah, you could call your splatter wall art if you found it personally justified.
12/05/09
Although I disagree with some of the details of your last post, I think we're in total agreement in regards to your last paragraph. You captured exactly what I wanted to say: why diminish something by deliberately making it wrong?
As for Melua's song, I'd be happy even with her first cut. I didn't care so much that she was inaccurate. I cared that she was close enough. There is a huge difference between being off the way she was (which, to me, was acceptable) and being blatantly wrong (division by zero) or talking about something of which one knows nothing about (neutrinos).
In addition, she was smart enough and humble enough to recut her song. Now, of course, I can't judge the Italian artist in that regard because, to my knowledge, no one has asked her to correct her signs, so this last paragraph is merely an extra kudo towards Melua.
12/05/09
"isn't one of the perennial attributes of art since the beginning of time to be something pleasing to the eye?"
That's an excellent question, and I'll respond with another: what exactly is the "eye" in the question above? By that I mean, what exactly is art supposed to be pleasing, or pleasing to? I ask because those signs are not particularly pleasing to my eyes and, far more importantly, they are not at all pleasing to my "sense of scientific aesthetics", if I can give it a name.
It's something hard to explain but which most scientists understand very well.
Richard Feynman was once told by a poet, I think, that science takes away all the poetry and beauty of nature, to which Feynman replied "on the contrary; I see more beauty in nature precisely because I understand how it works." (or something like that; I may not be quoting exactly)
Likewise, a former professor of mine and Nobel prize winner, Hans Bethe, the man who first understood how the sun manages to produce its energy, recalls in a book a night when he was staring at the sunset with his wife. (again, I may not be getting the details entirely correct)
I don't recall who said it, he or his wife, (let me assume it was he who said it), but at some point he said: "do you realize that, at this moment, I am the only person in the entire history of mankind to understand how the sun works?"
I hope that both examples serve to illustrate that understanding nature from a scientific point of view, details and all, accurately and all, does not rob from it any of its splendor. Quite the opposite. It singles out the person in question as belonging to a relatively small group of people who are touched by art in a way that transcends art itself.
So, I ask again: what exactly is art supposed to appeal to? Those signs not only do not appeal to me, but they - in fact - insult me. It's as if I was looking at really really really really bad art.
"How can any act of creation whether on purpose or accidental be invalid?"
Neither is invalid, but - in my view - a deliberate act of creation is more valid than an accidental one. After all, as human beings, we all want to be special and not just biological accidents. Therefore, something that we create on purpose ought to have, in our minds, more value than something created accidentally.
"Whether or not you 'charge lots of money for it'"
I mentioned money only because it's a measure of how other people value something. For an artist, a given creation might be priceless, while for someone else it might not be worth a dollar. Or vice-versa.
Although not ideal, monetary value tends to be agreed upon by large groups of people.
I may think that my drawing of a bicycle is worth $100 thousand, but if everyone else thinks that it's worth only $10, then that says something about it.
"What great meaning or message does the Mona Lisa convey, specifically?"
To me, personally? Several things. The amazing perception of Leonardo, his amazing attention to detail, his ability to draw out from the painting more than what he intentionally put in. In other words, his skill as an artist.
Contrast that to my throwing a bucket of paint onto a wall. I only threw in paint, nothing else, no intention. Even if it turns out pleasing to the eye, that's an accident, not something that can be ascribed to any artistic skill of mine. So, to me, it has no artistic value.
"In fact, to do exactly what we are doing right now. hmm.. not bad for stuff that's supposedly 'not art'..."
I beg to differ. Two people could talk for a long time about a pile of trash but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a pile of trash. (Note that I'm not necessarily suggesting nor implying that the work of the Italian artist is trash, although I do not think it has much - or any - artistic value)
"Long story short, art is creative self expression, not the creative expression of everyone else."
Fair enough, in which case I'd like to ask that Italian artist what she meant by "I used(d) to taste neutrinos" and whether she even knows what neutrinos are, in the simplest of terms. If she can give me a *reasonable* answer, I might be convinced to call those signs "art."
"So, yeah, you could call your splatter wall art if you found it personally justified."
But that's the point. Unless I do it intentionally, with my mind into the act of doing it, it will never be able to satisfy me. Thus, I cannot and would not call it art.
11/24/09
Not even a story about how the internet had a major part in one of the biggest scientific scandals of all time.
Oh well, I like reading about the planets that might have life and the space-porn and stuff.
11/24/09
Tell me, what exactly did you find distressing about the emails you read?
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Politics+Science=great combination.
11/24/09
No, I was more talking about the faking of "evidence", lying, trying to destroy documents, that stuff.
But hey, I realize I'm in the minority here and that the ends justify the means to some of you kind folks.
11/24/09
People who didn't care before still don't, people who don't know what they are talking about still don't and people who have made up their mind haven't changed it. Scientists are people, and send emails they might regret.
Nothing has changed=no scandal
11/24/09
But they can get back in the game if and when they find real evidence.
No scandal? Ok. If you say so. :)
11/24/09
11/24/09
"AGW Scientists".
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Maybe you're just a terrible troll. You could have at least lied and said you actually read the stuff.
11/24/09
You called me a troll, and that means this is our last communique. Take care.
11/24/09
To me, that's the same as Creationists who seize on the word 'Theory' in Theory of Evolution implying there's no evidence to support it, deliberately ignoring the context of the word: to a scientist, a "theory" has a different meaning to that of a layman. To a mathematician, a "trick" also has a different meaning.
11/24/09
If you want, here is a skeptic site that is all over this story from the beginning.
[wattsupwiththat.com]
11/25/09
But, like anything controversial that I lack the personal expertise to form my own opinion on, I will read commentary (from all sides) from people with more knowledge in the field than I, and try to distill the essence of the argument. So I followed your link, and found pretty much the same stuff I'd already read, with the list of key points including:
* the "tricks" of playing with data to fit the scientists’ assumptions
I'm certain that is a reference to the exact quote I discussed earlier, and it just reinforces my belief that they're trying to use context and semantics to 'prove' deceit.
That's unfortunate, because it casts doubt over the other points they raise, some of which sound way more potentially damaging (especially the stuff about deliberately deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information stuff).
The other thing I natually question is: why the *partial* release of the stolen emails?' Isn't that pretty much exactly what they're accusing the scientists of doing, excluding data that doesn't agree with their conclusions?
11/25/09
I know a trick for calculating the volume of an irregular spheroid , am I falsifying the volume of a spheroid?
You have memory tricks to remember things, are you falsifying anything?
You do not know anything about science, do not talk to an engineer about tricks of the trade.
11/25/09
Keep on humliating yourself, fool.
11/25/09
Why am I not surprised?
11/25/09
Check him out at sourcewatch.
11/25/09
11/25/09
If you stole thousands of emails from oil company's, car lobbiests, or well, just about anyone else you'd see the same. (or likely far worse)
The simple fact is people like clear cut pictures, shades of grey dont get press treatment, or are worse attacked as weakness's. Yet thats what science is all about. Its about the greys.
The climate IS changing and its probably the mass conversion of all the stored carbon in ground is having an effect.
But that dosnt make the effects predictable on small scales or in easy ways. Half of those "bad" emails I read were scientists trying to simplify the picture they present, rather then actual bad science of bad peer-reviews.
If they have anomaly's in their data they dont want to ignore it, they want it explained.
Dont get me wrong, over simplification is also wrong, but you cant dismiss worldwide scientific concess. To make all the scientists worldwide wrong on this, it would need to be a massive conspiracy with *more* funding then the various oil based industarys.
And there was no sign of that in those emails.
11/25/09
There was no faking of evidence.
Miss-representing, perhaps.
Faking evidence would be, like, melting glacers themselfs. Or changing ice core records etc.
Theres no sign of that.
Also no lyeing I saw.
And ereaseing emails is quite understandable under these circumstances.
11/25/09
Lates.
11/24/09
Al Gore had the same thought:
Internet or Inconvenient Truth...what to choose... what to choose?
11/24/09
11/24/09
So whole the ice melting in your glass will not cause your drink to overflow, dumping more ice in after it melts will.
11/24/09
This little Emily does make you think about ice melting. Thanks, Emily!
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
If it makes you feel any better its about the same percentage of time (comparing lifetime vs time having sex) for humans and Crustose Coralline Red Algae.
On the other hand if it's the red algae from an algal bloom ("red tide") then they are still having sex about 1hr 59 mins 56 secs after they have died.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Cute and slightly disturbing.
11/18/09
1, 6, and 9 are just awesome.
11/18/09
#@!