Creepy-Crawlies Create Art

58. Starry Night

This piece of art deserves to be featured in the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art because it portrays cockroaches in a creative light, rather than as insects that need to be exterminated. This painting was created by a hissing cockroach, one of the inspirational arthropods for artist Steven Kutcher. Kutcher paints the feet and bodies of cockroaches and other insects, then lets them loose on a canvas. He views cockroaches and other arthropods as artists, and the artwork that they create as a glimpse into their world. Kutcher began his career as an insect wrangler for movies, and is known for his fascination and excitement about his insects. I think that this union of art and cockroaches relates very much to the discussion we had in class regarding the differences between animals and humans. One of the main differences was creativity, and we discussed how some animals can paint, and whether or not it can be considered actual creativity. The cockroaches behind these paintings may not know that they are creating art, but it is creative all the same. The art allows us to actually visualize the movements of cockroaches, and to me, this makes them less "creepy-crawly". By looking at their footprints rather than just feeling them, it almost humanizes them in a way. Don't get me wrong, that feeling of a crawling bug is still gross, but this art is all about cockroaches just doing their thing and minding their own business. This art also addresses the general perspective about cockroaches and insects, as opposed to other animals. When elephants or monkeys create art, it is featured on news programs and regarded as amazing or cute. However, when cockroaches and insects create art, it is kept pretty under-the-radar. I had never heard about insect art until I began researching for this post, and I was amazed to learn that there have been museum exhibits featuring art related to insects. It is refreshing to know that there are people out there who view insects as on the same level as other animals, and I think that the general public's view of insects would change if art like this was more widespread.

Information about Steven Kutcher

Biopunk- My Question

Why aren't more affordable, do-it-yourself diagnostic tools more widely available to the public? We have all heard about pregnancy tests and even at-home drug screening tests, but why isn't there a test for cancer? Or any other disease, for that matter? It seems like some sort of DIY cancer kit could do fairly well on today's market. I suppose that mass producing such kits may prove difficult, but there could also be a way to sell the product not fully formed. The kit could come with all of the necessary components and a set of straightforward instructions, the the buyer could put the pieces together easily enough. I imagine it wouldn't be too much harder than putting together an Ikea dresser. I think such tests could prove very useful in today's world, especially with the Baby Boomer generation reaching an age where disease is a high risk. I think the Biopunk movement is taking great leaps in the direction of making science affordable and inclusive, and the next step is clearly to make it more widespread.

biohacking

If my roommate decided to become a biohacker, I would probably think it was pretty cool. I'm a microbiology major, so the idea of messing with DNA and whatnot is very interesting to me. I think that there are a lot of positive things that could come out of people creating experiments and researching different genes and molecules in their own homes. However, I would want to make sure my roommate knew how to maintain a level of sterility and safety while going about biohacking. Also, I would want to make sure that the molecule isn't something dangerous. I think that a lot of concerns could be mollified if biological "kits" were made available to anyone who wanted one (similar to iGem, but not limited to college students). This would let people tinker without the risk of dealing with a dangerous molecule. If I decided to join my roommate in biohacking, I would probably set aside a separate room for that and make sure that aseptic techniques are being used. Other than that, not many changes would have to take place. Overall, I would be fine with having a biohacker in the house!

To infinity and beyond!

Hyperspace!

When I started trying to classify galaxies and whatnot, I felt a little bit under-qualified. Even though they gave us pictures to use as a comparison, I just felt a little bit ehhhh every time I put an answer in. But after a little while I became more confident. Yeah!

I really like the idea of citizen science. Giving anyone who wants to be involved a chance to participate in scientific discovery is just a really cool idea. It's also so efficient! When I read the article about how the Zooniverse was started, I found it interesting that they minimize the classification error by giving the same picture multiple times to different people. That made me feel a little better about my iffy classifications. Ha! I think that by making sure every image is classified multiple times, it becomes more accurate and usable by the scientific community. This approach to science is useful for any project that is large (like the universe or the sea floor), and it could also be used as a larger-scale peer review system.

The Home of the Future

The home of the future was really interesting to me. When thinking of the future, people imagined inventions that would be useful, durable, and provide comfort. The buildings would be designed to evolve to fit the needs of the family that lived within it, through rooms that could be removed and replaced. The building materials were re-imagined to use a lot of plastics and synthetic materials to increase durability. These plastics would also be used in fabrics, which would make cleaning easier. The people of the past also thought of house alternatives, such as the "auto trailer"- a car and a home in one!

It is interesting to see how many of the inventions came to life in today's world, notably the homes that were built and then transported to an empty lot. These inventions were all meant to make life easier and more comfortable, and to improve the standard of living. People wanted to live in controlled environments, so thought of systems that would maintain the temperature of a home. I also noticed that a lot of the inventions featured the ability to get things done more quickly, which I think is a departure from the way people had been living. Our present was imagined to be very modular and productive, while still keeping a conservative viewpoint in that we wouldn't be wasting materials or products. I think that people really wanted a way to be luxurious without being frivolous, and they expressed that through these inventions that made life easier.

To the Future!

When looking at the materials, I noticed a few different perspectives regarding the "world of tomorrow". Overall, the recurring theme was optimism. In the "Democracity" brochure, the tone took a more practical standpoint, while the video "All's Fair at the Fair" was slightly hesitant and impractical. The "Democracity" was built to promote interdependence and a life of ease. While the brochure claimed that the city was not a utopia, it really was. The planners thought of every detail, and the city was designed to work like a well-oiled machine. It foreshadowed a lot of technology we have today, such as underground and above-ground parking in cities, fire extinguishers, central heating and air, and fireproofing cities. In the Democracity, every citizen was interdependent on one another, and no one was in competition with their neighbors. This city, from the layout to the technologies within it, was revolutionary to the people of 1939. It's likely that they never imagined a city with such a large scale and massive population.

The "All's Fair at the Fair" video was more impractical, highlighting all of the cool things people would be able to do in the future. Everything is run by machines and assembly lines. Throughout the video, we see the evolution of a couple that rode in on a horse-and-carriage and left in a roadster. They start out looking and not touching, but soon immerse themselves in the wonders of the future. This process represents the hesitance that people probably felt about the future. Their appearance and demeanor change along with the technology, and they seem to be happy about it. There are times where they must pay for the things that they do, which I think is a way of saying that the future comes with a price. That price could be the loss of a simpler way of life. However, the video ends on an optimistic note, with the couple speeding away with their horse in the back seat. This is symbolic of moving forward, but not completely disconnecting from old ideals.

There was a "science fiction" undertone is every part of the World of Tomorrow, manifesting in the  modernistic architecture and city plans, as well as futuristic devices like the "orange drink" machine and automated beauty salon. Everything looks new and sparkly, as opposed to the dirt and grime of the cities of the time. The faster rate of travel and the devices designed to make life more enjoyable for the average person would have left a fair-goer excited about the future. All of these technologies were science and engineering based, which lends to the "science fiction" genre. Today, we have many of the things that people in 1939 were speculating about, but we still try to figure out what will come next. It is interesting to think that many of the out-there theories about what the future would look like actually came true. I think that this is the central motivator of science fiction in general, to imagine new innovations and futuristic ways of life. We are living in the world of tomorrow.

(Image Source) 

Dinosaurs!

 The Cabazon Dinosaurs

 When the Crystal Palace dinosaurs were first introduced, I can only imagine what the public thought and felt about them. Today's public has grown up seeing huge, lifelike sculptures of almost every type of creature imaginable, and so have been somewhat desensitized to the amazingness of the actual sculptures. The public of the 1800s would have never seen something like the Crystal Palace dinosaurs before. I imagine that the first sight of the creatures would have been awe-inspiring, a little bit frightening, and overwhelmingly interesting. It must have been a huge deal to discover that we could "travel back in time" by using our imaginations to recreate creatures of the past. I think that because this idea and these sculptures were so new, the public had a much greater respect for them than we do now.  When Charles Knight was painting dinosaurs in the early 20th century, we were still discovering how dinosaurs really looked and behaved. There was still a huge interest in the extinct creatures, and Knight was revolutionary in his technique of looking at the skeletons of the dinosaurs and working his way out from there. I found it really interesting how he based his dinosaurs of off modern animals like elephants, perhaps reinforcing the idea that many of today's animals evolved from dinosaurs (source). However, once we had dinosaurs "figured out", the public lost interest in them. They wanted something new to discover, and the result of that attitude is the deterioration of dinosaur-mania in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The generations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries treat dinosaurs as something trivial and "old hat". Today's youth especially seems to be more taken by zombies, werewolves, and vampires than any dinosaur or other natural creature. I think this phenomenon is largely influenced by the media of today. The market is over-saturated with movies, books, and TV shows about mythical beings and the supernatural, but dinosaurs and natural history are noticeably absent. Another contributing factor to the decline in interest in dinosaurs could be how children are first introduced to them. W.J.T. Mitchell talks about how his first introduction to dinosaurs was very dull, and seen as "science" (source). I have to agree with him on that point. When I was in elementary school, we most definitely learned about dinosaurs on more than one occasion, but I honestly cannot recall what was taught to me. In schools, the subject of dinosaurs is very boring and dry, which is why people today aren't interested in them. If dinosaurs were seen as something really cool and amazing from the very beginning, I think that people today would have more respect for dinosaurs.

I grew up in San Diego, where the museums in Balboa Park have always been free on Tuesdays, so I spent a lot of time in museums as a kid. It was always fun to go the Natural History Museum and see the dinosaurs and other animals, but my favorite was always the train museum. Dinosaurs just didn't stand out for me. As I got a little older, I started seeing dinosaurs in movies. The first dinosaurs that I remember actually liking were in the movies Jurassic Park and PeeWee's Big Adventure. The Jurassic Park dinosaurs were scary and exciting to watch, and I think that the movie made dinosaurs and the research of dinosaurs seem really cool. That movie was almost like our generation's Crystal Palace, in that it showcased a new way to imagine dinosaurs. The idea that we could bring them back to life using science was similar to how the dinosaurs were brought back to life in sculpture form at the Crystal Palace. In PeeWee's Big Adventure, PeeWee goes to the Cabazon Dinosaurs, which I grew up seeing on trips to Palm Springs. While these are not real dinosaurs, they are similar in my mind to the sculptures of the Crystal Palace. When I saw these huge dinosaurs in the middle of the desert, I would imagine that they were still alive and this was their natural habitat. Since then, that image has always stood out in my mind, and I imagine that the Crystal Palace visitors felt the same way.