According to this article the Hadron particle accelerator failed this summer due to “a single, badly soldered electrical connection”.
This is awesome. And while I suspect the problem is a little more complex than what is described, it is still a completely relatable issue. Anyone who has ever used a soldering iron, or enjoyed the frustration of fixing older Christmas tree lights can empathize. I myself have witnessed and experienced the complete annoyance of going over an entire circuit board with one’s dinky voltmeter trying to locate that stupid failed connection under the pressure of having to present the work in short order. I can only begin to imagine the tedium of having to comb through the electronic innards of a particle accelerator. Yech.
This weekend I took the bus over to NYC to attend a conference at the New York Academy of Sciences titled: Biology and Art: Two Worlds or One? I was initially hesitant to go as I have to be ready to install my thesis show in two weeks but I decided to go to refresh my brain a bit.
Highlights include:
Theo Jansen whose kinetic sculptures blew me away with their delicacy, enormous scale and charm.
Dr. Jonathan King’s discussion on how his students learn from visual representations of cellular proteins. King brought up the extremely important point that his students, despite being brilliant MIT kids, still had to be taught how to read images, or how to actually assimilate and understand what the electron microscope was telling them. I thought this was so important mainly because I was getting this vibe from the other scientists that they felt like art needed to be straightforward and easy to understand. But art is like any other image or language. You need to learn how to see before you actually start seeing it. Similarly science is also not that straight foward or easy to understand. Scientist may think some things obvious but it is becuase they are fully versed in the language and thinking of science.
I also enjoyed the talk of Dr. Andrew A. Bienwener on the kinetics of animal movement. I remember discussing in my Kant class last semester the amazing lack of consciousness in animal movement. It was astounding and beautiful to see mountain goats effortlessly climb and the resulting very creepy and uncanny robots built to mimic these movements.
I got the feeling that a lot of scientists with the exception of Dr. King felt that art was obligated to be within a certain aesthetic paradigm. If you are contemporary artist, generally the question of this type of aesthetic at this point is considered tacky and bourgeoisie. Interestingly I ran into a similar problem with a scientifically inclined friend of mine who also expressed concern about aesthetics. And I think this is a huge communication problem that probably cuts both ways. And there is going to have to be some learning on both sides as to what we can expect from art and what we can expect from science. Frankly I am always for pushing the envelope and forgetting old rules and forgetting what makes you feel happy and comfortable. For example the Cloaca art project, which is essentially a glorified shit making machine that mimics the digestive system. Utterly fantastic.
I am happy I went. It helped me reinforce why I like being an artist. There was this moment at the reception held afterwards where I was stuffing myself full of prosciutto and cheese and on my third glass of wine looking out into a fantastic view of the city (we were on the 40th floor of a brand new high-rise) chatting with a woman who was working with a neurologist, researching the 8 things that the brain and the human eye find pleasing and it was very affirming. I am doing the right thing.
