Re: Can scientific data be art?
- From: "Entertained by my own EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty." <ei_spamtrap_mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 01:53:51 -0400 (EDT)
A "piece of art" is (or ought, IMO, be approximately defined as) anything
perceivable that has been produced as a result of a creative urge and/or
ditto intention of an individual (or collaborative effort involving thusly
intending individuals).
Hence, any 'audio-visual' (audible and/or visible) mapping/representation of
scientific data that turn out to be emotionally or esthetically affecting
(possibly pleasing) DOES DEFINITELY NOT qualify as art - darn and dammit!
:-(
What I stupidity!
"Amir" <agiveon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gc1kek$2f3p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Have you ever seen a scientific related image and thought "wow, that's
just beautiful!"?
I came across a couple of university internal "art of science"
competitions where scientists present images from their research and
compete based on beauty... why should it be only within universities?
I created a simple gallery at http://www.myartinscience.com/ where
anyone can post, view, share, comment and discuss these images.
Join me and share the beauty in science!
A.S
.
- References:
- Can scientific data be art?
- From: Amir
- Can scientific data be art?
- Prev by Date: Evolutionary Viewpoint of William Bateson
- Next by Date: Re: One celled organisms acting as a swarm?
- Previous by thread: Can scientific data be art?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Haven't Cyanobacteria Changed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
