From: Leonel Moura
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:16:29 +0000
When we talk about bioinspired art it does not mean necessarily that we are inspired by images produced by biology scientists but that we understand natural processes and mechanisms and apply them to art production. If not what is the difference between an electron microscope image of, let's say, a beautiful bacteria and a landscape? Should we paint it like an impressionist? Or isn't it more interesting, and artistic, to study the bacteria and use the acquired knowledge to generate art works?
LM
to post a response, click on the "comment" button below
to return to the main page, go to www.visualcultureandbioscience.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How is it that the 'bioinspired' differs from modern Romanticist's infatuation with Nature?
NRIII
Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III
Editor, Kritikos
http://intertheory.org
[posted on behalf of Leonel Moura]
That is exactly my point. It does if it is biology and the understanding of the living mechanisms that inspire our art works. It does not if we just contemplate, illustrate or reproduce images of biosciences, for astonishing that they may be.
For some of us the relevant is not to build another ‘Cabinet d’Amateur’, now filled with objects and pseudo-objects of science, but to use and deviate science for art production. Bioinspired does not mean necessarily inspired in nature, but more properly inspired in nature sciences. It makes a lot of difference.
Post a Comment