Re: art&science

From: Serafino Cerulli-Irelli (
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000 - 10:54:18 MDT

Precedence: bulk

ŠHerbartıs and Machıs relativism > Einsteinıs (and
Poincare) relativity theory > Picassoıs (and Braque) cubism
(superposition of images of the same object, seen from different points of
view) > Quantum Mechanics (superposition of states, subject-object
relations, theory of measurement, paradoxes, etc.) > Š

I appreciate what you are saying, but why focus on the past? Why not form
current analogies? For example, Picasso and Braque were certainly Cubist
superstars (actually it was Braque and then Picasso), but what have they to
do with current art trends and applications? Why not focus on
Transhumanist Artists and Extropic Art and art modes created with digital
tools, Artificial life, Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology -- whose
work reflects themes of biotechnology, genetic engineering, Superlongevity?
Referring to paintings and sculpture to reflect art on this extropian list
is like discussing the light bulb to reflect technology rather than
nanotechnology, AI, the Singularity or Uploads.


Well, I'm an old fashioned extropian.
Long time ago I was shocked reading that ancient Greeks pictured the future
in a different way. Ancients thought that we are walking backwards, so we
cannot look at the future, because the future is behind our backs. We can
just see the past, in front of our eyes.
It's important to point out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not
effective if we are interested in the past dynamics of a quantum object. So,
even from this very peculiar point of view, the only thing we can see
properly is the past, not the future.
P.A.M. Dirac told me in Rome, in a very thin voice, that he too (as
Einstein, de Broglie, Schroedinger) did not like the s.c. Born (or
Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein used yo say that
<the good God does not play with dice>. Dirac said <I must say that I also
do not like indeterminism>. In his opinion (Dirac's opinion was solid gold)
that radical interpretation was not satisfactory and ultimate. Why? Mainly
because the beauty principle was not fulfilled. Reference: P.A.M. Dirac, The
Development of Quantum Mechanics, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 1974
Silvio Ceccato, philosopher, scientist and robot builder (1950), told me
that <in art the wait-and-think approach is a must>.
Emilio Segre', positron particle photographer and one of those guys working
on the bomb (<we worked like beasts, imagining the bomb falling exactly on
Hitler's head, but U.S. Gov. took the other choice>) told me interesting
things about the art & science argument.
>From Victor Weisskopf I learned that arts are changing in time, according to
society and culture. But - that's important - science progress, while art do
not progress (I do not mean extropian art). Weisskopf was (to me) less
convincing when he said that science changes a single phenomenon in a
general form (law) and art turns a general experience in a single form.
Reference: V.W., The Privilege of Being a Physicist, book, circa 1989.
So I studied the Capestrano Warrior ,
the Cubist Epoch (links to physics and philosophy), Mondrian's more and more
abstract trees, Pollock's art (chaos, zen, Bohm's unbroken wholeness).
But, who knows?, sooner or later I'd like to play some singularity
five-senses time-reversed artistic performance.
The times they are a-changin'...
Rome (Italy)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:42 MDT