Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Science

Nanomicroscopic Image Or Modern Art? 60

SillyConCarbide writes "Every six months, the Materials Research Society holds a science as art competition. The winners from their most recent meeting are particularly breathtaking. Materials researchers may struggle for years with stubborn instruments, fragile crystals or difficult chemical reactions before obtaining a bit of precious data from the exotic substances they study. Now, the scrutiny of samples not only yields potentially important data, but also artistic inspiration. Polymer films, cerium oxide membranes, and tantalum oxide crystals can look beautiful in the right light — especially if that light is an electron beam."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanomicroscopic Image Or Modern Art?

Comments Filter:
  • Everything is Art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Saturday April 26, 2008 @10:24AM (#23207070) Homepage
    I used to work as a security guard in a modern art museum. I the gallery was a plain looking wooden bench. I got asked, "Can I sit on this bench or is it art.?"

    "No its just a bench".

    If nobody can tell what art is anymore then is everything art?

    This is art, in the way that photography is art.

  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Saturday April 26, 2008 @11:00AM (#23207242) Journal
    Some say "art" is "something that took skill to produce an aesthetic result". So thinking of it as that and aesthetics being in the eye of the beholder, I guess it's subjective if something is art or not.

    And using that "definition", photography can be called art by the one watching it if he/she think skill was well used for the result, but maybe not otherwise.
  • by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Saturday April 26, 2008 @11:37AM (#23207402) Homepage

    That just means that modern art is so meaningless and trite that no one knows what could be included as it.

    Well, I take issue with the idea that labeling something as "art" immediately puts in on some pedestal of un-questionablity. If you do question it, it's some kind of reflection on your poor understanding of "art", i.e. "the emperor has no clothes".

    In my view, call anything you like "art", but some art just plain sucks monkey dick. I was at a modern art museum in Munich about a month ago, and one piece of "art" was two pieces of pink yarn, strung ceiling to floor. It was titled "pink flamingo". That was easily the biggest piece of utter crap I've ever seen in a museum. (Of course, this was a rather strange museum where the alarms went off literally every 5-10 minutes because people got too close to the art). The alarms going off, and the nazi guard that yelled at people was a hell of a lot more expressive of Bavaria than anything I saw in that museum.
  • In my view, call anything you like "art", but some art just plain sucks monkey dick.

    YES! That's it exactly. If it even makes concessions to the art of creation, it's art! It doesn't matter if it's a commercial for lemon pledge or your kid's crayon pictures on your fridge. Either way, no one gives a fuck - but they're still both art.

    Art is, well, it's art. Practically everything involves artistry. The notion that you can't question its value is what's retarded.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...