RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Art : Blood 2,000,000x

Blood 2,000,000x

Blood 2,000,000x
David S. Goodsell

Description of Image:This watercolor illustration shows a cross-section through the blood, with blood serum in the upper half and a red blood cell in the lower half. In the serum, look for Y-shaped antibodies, long thin fibrinogen molecules (in light red) and many small albumin proteins. The large UFO-shaped objects are low density lipoprotein and ... (See the whole comment)

(Added by Hong Zhang on 6/02, 8:06pm)

Discuss this Artwork (26 messages)

Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 7:31am

Michael,
Once again you have gently showed me how shallow and naive I am in all matters artistic. ;-<

So I better stick to my own turf - biological science. In that, I actually can say with certain degree of authority that this work is a representation of a reality - blood - at microscopic resolution, to the best of our knowledge today, and with a fair amount of its creator's imagination and aesthetic treatment.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/05, 10:09am)

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 8:21am

Hong,

You scare me...presumptuously; I think we think very much alike.

Michael

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 7:32pm

Oh great, Michael, now my shallowness and naivety in art are cemented with your endorsement.

And geez, first I am brutal, and now scary, you sure have a (wicked) way with a gal!

Back to this picture though. I think the questions left are: is it beautiful beyond ordinary? I myself certainly think so. Obviously a lot of people think the same. Then the next question is how significant it is in term of aesthetics? Or what is its merit as an art work objectively? I certainly don�t know nearly enough to even attempt to address these questions.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/07, 11:08am)

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 9:29pm

And geez, first I am brutal, and now scary, you sure have a (wicked) way with a gal!

You forgot the adorable!

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 9:44pm

Ha, I also forgot "thoughtful guy". Still like that one the best! ;-)

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 3:05pm

Sorry to interrupt the love....

After reading Jonathan's "Grogbert" comments, and Hong's question above [post 22], I have questions for Michael Newberry (I've read more about you and realize science is not your background, but I would like your opinion nonetheless since you seem to be the foremost 'aesthetician'* in SOLO).

How much can (or should) science inform on what qualifies as art? I strongly contend that the advance science has brought to man's perception should reflect on his aesthetic. Much of what is seen in representational art is of 'human' scale - portraits, still lifes, landscapes, etc. - but what of interesting things beyond these bounds? Surely the microscopic and the cosmic** have significance too. Doesn't the limitations of confining one to a 'middle scale' imply a 'locked down' view of human nature?

Regarding "craft tooling": Is there a point at which the tools one uses to make 'art' determine whether it really is art or not? Would it not be fair to exempt say Photoshop� (electronics) yet allow for pigments (chemistry) or the camera obscura (optics)?

I would like an extended reply and not merely one of the "Live and let live" variety.

Hoping for your considerate response,
num++

___________________________

*Had to use the word. Makes a nice counterpoint to 'anaesthetic' art.

**I do not mean here one of those "umbrellas to the horizon" art installations you have dealt with on another thread. I mean more of outer space, other planetary vistas, oceanic depths, etc. (still in the realm of nature, not constructs of artifice).