reileywilliamsDESMA9

     This week’s materials and external readings prompted me to reconsider the role of art as a critical lens for reimagining space exploration and technology. Brian Holmes’ “Coded Utopia” compellingly argues that digital and technological systems are not merely neutral tools but encode complex socio-political ideals (Holmes). This insight reframes digital infrastructures and artistic systems as sites of ideological negotiation, where aesthetics and politics converge.      The Leonardo Space Art Project furthers this idea by demonstrating how art does not merely reflect technological progress but actively shapes it. Through collaborations between artists and scientists, the project challenges conventional separations of empirical science and creative speculation (Malina). Similarly, the KSEVT Cultural Centre positions art and science as co-constitutive, suggesting that space exploration is not solely a technical enterprise but a cultural one as well (KSEVT)...

This week’s materials expanded my understanding of how nanotechnology intersects with art and science, specifically in material manipulation, ethical implications, and visualization at the nanoscale. The reading The Nanomeme Syndrome (Artsci UCLA) provided a foundation by explaining how the language and metaphors used in nanoscience shape public perception and artistic interpretations. It argues that the “nanomeme”—a conceptual framework combining science, media, and imagination—has contributed to exaggerated expectations about what nanotechnology can achieve (Artsci UCLA). This idea made me critically assess how artists use nanotechnology not just as a tool, but also as a narrative device to discuss broader cultural and ethical questions. Figure 1: Conceptual visualization from “The Nanomeme Syndrome.” Image source: artsci.ucla.edu. Ray Kurzweil’s TED Talk on the coming singularity introduced the idea of rapid technological progress driven by nanotechnology. He discussed how nanoscal...

Retracing the North > South > North walk at the end of the quarter felt completely different than when I first did it. The first time, walking past Powell Library, I felt grounded and familiar. But as I crossed Bruin Walk and walked toward the Court of Sciences, I remember feeling like I had entered a different ecosystem: faster, more technical, less like “me.” This time, I paused deliberately in that transition zone right by the crosswalk between the breezeway in Mathematical Sciences and Kerckhoff. The fountain’s sound and circular motion felt symbolic of the course itself, where ideas and disciplines continuously ripple and overlap. As I passed the Biomedical Library and the Mathematical Sciences building, I didn’t feel out of place like I used to. Instead, I felt curious. I remembered Vesna’s vision of a “third culture”—a space where artists and scientists co-create new knowledge—and I saw it unfolding right in front of me. In front of the CNSI (California NanoSystems Institu...

This week’s focus on neuroscience and art made me rethink how we define identity. In Neuroculture by Frazzetto and Anker, they describe how neuroscience has entered everyday life from how we understand emotions to how we interpret ourselves. Brain scans are no longer just medical data; they’ve become symbols of who we are. Fig. 1: Susan Aldworth, Scribing the Soul (2008). Susan Aldworth’s Between a Thing and a Thought uses her own brain scans as art. It’s powerful because it turns the invisible, her thoughts, into something visual. It shows how art can give form to brain data, making the personal public. Suzanne Anker does something similar in fMRI Butterfly , where she layers brain scans with butterflies and inkblots. These overlays raise a key question: If brain scans are open to interpretation, how objective is the science behind them? Fig. 2: Suzanne Anker, MRI Butterfly (2008). Cristina Albu’s essay on neuroaesthetics also stood out to me. She explains how artists use neurosci...

     This week’s exploration of biotechnology as artistic media challenged my assumptions about what qualifies as " art" and who has the authority to create with life. The reading and artworks pushed me to consider how transgenics, mutation, and selective breeding blur the line between ethical inquiry and artistic expression. Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny was particularly provocative. By inserting a jellyfish gene into a rabbit to make it glow green, Kac ignites debate around the boundaries of consent, spectacle, and bioethics ( Kac). While the bunny is aesthetically fascinating, there are major  ethical implications — are we celebrating innovation or objectifying life? Figure 1: Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny ( 2000). Image source: ekac. org.      Kac’s Edunia , a hybrid between his DNA and a petunia, offered a softer, more poetic approach. The flower's red veins express a human gene,  turning the plant into a living self- portrait . This poetic use of biol...