|
|
|
|
|
by HBlix
2812 days ago
|
|
I think you bring up interesting points, but in Neri Oxman’s case the answer seems to be that the science is essentially absent in its entirety. I won’t pretend to have a good answer to “what is art,” but the question “what is science” is much easier to answer. Her work may be art, but it utterly fails the test of science insofar as it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method. She’s a scientist in the same way that a color therapist is a medical doctor. Better examples of the intersection of science and art might be found in the work of someone like Buckminster Fuller. The nature of science being what it is, the science probably has to come first, with the art emerging from it |
|
Most of science fiction kinda disputes this though. A scientist has to have the imagination to construct the experiment.