What follows is a transcript of the interview with Elisa Facchin Alessandro Scali and Robin Goode, published in the magazine-catalog Spaceship Turin exhibition, held at the International Museum of Applied Arts Today (MIAAO) in Turin, where the two artists have participated con l’opera dal titolo U.N.O. (Unidentified Nanometric Objects, 2007).
Pubblicitari e grafici di professione. Si sono accostati all’arte per esprimersi altrimenti, con una grande voglia di rischiare intraprendendo percorsi inesplorati. Come un tempo il grande Franco Grignani, amano l’arte come sperimentazione e metodo, ma corretto dall’ironia. La NanoArte, ossia la creazione di artefatti in scala micro e nanometrica, è una svolta recente nelle loro ricerche e li sta portando alla ribalta, perché in questo campo sono pionieri. La loro prima opera, Oltre le colonne d’Ercole, è una lastra di silicio su cui sono impresse impronte delle dimensioni di una cellula: first steps towards the spectacular universe that nanotechnology can reveal. I am Alessandro Scali (Turin, 1972) and Robin Goode (Cape Town 1978), who founded the art collective communication Kut PAPERKUT agency communications. We meet them in their studio in Turin.
How did the idea to undertake the challenge of Nanoart?
Our professional curiosity leads us to do research, to be eager for news in all fields. In 2004, surfing the Net, we came across in the first images of nanotechnology. We were impressed by the expressive potential of this new frontier of science, which could allow a provocative play on the conceptual overcoming the 'visual arts'. We have prepared a draft NanoArt, posted anywhere, and turns the 'horizontality hierarchical' own Internet, the greatest luminaries of the field, we have responded by directing them towards the Italian centers of excellence for nanotechnology: Trieste and Turin, Lecce and Catanzaro.
How did the collaboration with the Polytechnic of Turin?
After meeting Professor Enzo di Fabrizio University of Trieste and have received very positive feedback from him about the feasibility and quality of the project, we decided groped in our city, at the Polytechnic. We have made contact with Professor Fabrizio Pirri, Department of Physics, which has formed a team, now composed of six people, and kicked off the work. We owe everything to the University: we create our research topics, so let the 'inventors', but they implement them, are the artists 'applied' nanotechnology ...
What do you use? Several
. For example, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, we used photolithography, the current size to oxidative lithography, a fool who reads the laser ablation.
Why nanotechnology as a 'tool' of artistic production?
should be made clear: we have decided to art 'invisible' because we came in nanotechnology. The opposite is true: nanotechnology has all the features to enable us to deliver an effective and innovative concepts that we wanted to convey, making art. New viewpoints, new values, new readings of the world as, for example, a complaint of invisibility 'politics' of an entire continent in the case of current size, an Africa-sized 300x280 nanometers. On the one hand and then use nanotechnology because they allow us an aggressive artistic communication, concise and impressive. Second, we assign a value to our work as important popular: nanotechnology is the result of scientific progress and a lot of people are unaware of the strides that science has made in the last century (think of the halo of mystery that still surrounds the quantum mechanics). Yet, the worlds that new technologies are able to uncover are terribly fascinating even for the uninitiated. With our work not only 'minor', but 'minimal', even 'dwarf' we hope to create a contact, even empathy, between the public and new scientific and aesthetic, while the arts 'more' of everything fuck it. So
art as a means 'popular' for the dissemination of scientific knowledge?
Too. We feel the need to get out of the scientific and technological laboratories also high profile, that all he approprino, that everyone 'surprise'. Today we do not use brushes but nanotechnology, using what science has to offer. But this is only the beginning. We do not want to feel connected to the power of nanotechnology. There are many other technologies that we apply artistically. Our goal is to open a laboratory at the Polytechnic, where gather the input they receive from researchers and artistic reworking. A modern version of the ancient art workshops. In this regard there is one aspect that has extremely impressed: there is a period in which Researchers are testing the machines and they do playing just created (for example, in the case of nanotechnology to create tiny objects 'profane'). We would like to include in the gap between research and play and use it to communicate something. The laboratory would make it stable and this project would provide to people who have worked with us so far to continue to specialize in this area hybrid 'technology-art': a professional unusual, futuristic.
the first exhibition of NanoArt as a reaction you expect from the public and what is then actually been?
Everything went as expected: it creates a kind of 'aesthetic embarrassment' why people did not know how to relate to the work. On the other hand it is the silicon chip placed on a pedestal and watching them do not see anything, except that the technicians put markers to define the scope, immense, in which the work is. The gaze of the viewer runs the captions and find peace only when he passes the enlargements made with a scanning microscope and certified by the University on the wall. Only by providing the 'evidence' proves that the work exists, otherwise it might not be there: an 'aesthetic paradox' to which the viewer should 'trust' of the artist. Perhaps, to educate this kind of vision, and 'aesthetic experience', should, before you get to just expose chip (which would be typical artistic provocation), groped the way of interaction, it set forth the optical microscopes. The problem is that not all the works are so 'great' can be seen by light microscopy and the machines that it would take, the FESEM scanning electron microscopes, can only be used in laboratory and technical experts.
The 'nanoparticles' produced so far are very different from each other: the current size and 'busy', Beyond the Pillars of Hercules is 'science fiction', Dumb reader is a gag. There is a thread? The common thread is
a taste for paradox, contradiction, irony and intellectual challenge. For example, the reader is emblematic Dumb: use technology to produce 'rubbish' in fact is nothing but a metaphor for futility, when the danger of certain technology if adopted uncritically or speculatively. But, mind you, this book can be read as a divertissement. For us it is very important that the first level of interpretation is straightforward, then it is obvious that depending on the background of those who observe the limits of interpretation can be multiplied indefinitely: it is the 'semantic step' ...
not believe that the potential expressive of nanotechnology can result in the visible-invisible dichotomy? Yes
Since we do not want our becoming a way, we've got many new projects involving other technologies, in line with the idea of \u200b\u200b'didactic' where did the first wave.
Are you fascinated by science fiction?
We are fascinated by borders, indistinct, of science. More details from the territories and spaces scientific than those of single undisciplined imagination. But then sometimes the borders are blurred: there are things 'out there' who have read so different from ours contemporaneramente to appear as real and fantastic.
Pubblicitari e grafici di professione. Si sono accostati all’arte per esprimersi altrimenti, con una grande voglia di rischiare intraprendendo percorsi inesplorati. Come un tempo il grande Franco Grignani, amano l’arte come sperimentazione e metodo, ma corretto dall’ironia. La NanoArte, ossia la creazione di artefatti in scala micro e nanometrica, è una svolta recente nelle loro ricerche e li sta portando alla ribalta, perché in questo campo sono pionieri. La loro prima opera, Oltre le colonne d’Ercole, è una lastra di silicio su cui sono impresse impronte delle dimensioni di una cellula: first steps towards the spectacular universe that nanotechnology can reveal. I am Alessandro Scali (Turin, 1972) and Robin Goode (Cape Town 1978), who founded the art collective communication Kut PAPERKUT agency communications. We meet them in their studio in Turin. How did the idea to undertake the challenge of Nanoart?
Our professional curiosity leads us to do research, to be eager for news in all fields. In 2004, surfing the Net, we came across in the first images of nanotechnology. We were impressed by the expressive potential of this new frontier of science, which could allow a provocative play on the conceptual overcoming the 'visual arts'. We have prepared a draft NanoArt, posted anywhere, and turns the 'horizontality hierarchical' own Internet, the greatest luminaries of the field, we have responded by directing them towards the Italian centers of excellence for nanotechnology: Trieste and Turin, Lecce and Catanzaro.
How did the collaboration with the Polytechnic of Turin?
After meeting Professor Enzo di Fabrizio University of Trieste and have received very positive feedback from him about the feasibility and quality of the project, we decided groped in our city, at the Polytechnic. We have made contact with Professor Fabrizio Pirri, Department of Physics, which has formed a team, now composed of six people, and kicked off the work. We owe everything to the University: we create our research topics, so let the 'inventors', but they implement them, are the artists 'applied' nanotechnology ...
What do you use? Several
. For example, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, we used photolithography, the current size to oxidative lithography, a fool who reads the laser ablation.
Why nanotechnology as a 'tool' of artistic production?
should be made clear: we have decided to art 'invisible' because we came in nanotechnology. The opposite is true: nanotechnology has all the features to enable us to deliver an effective and innovative concepts that we wanted to convey, making art. New viewpoints, new values, new readings of the world as, for example, a complaint of invisibility 'politics' of an entire continent in the case of current size, an Africa-sized 300x280 nanometers. On the one hand and then use nanotechnology because they allow us an aggressive artistic communication, concise and impressive. Second, we assign a value to our work as important popular: nanotechnology is the result of scientific progress and a lot of people are unaware of the strides that science has made in the last century (think of the halo of mystery that still surrounds the quantum mechanics). Yet, the worlds that new technologies are able to uncover are terribly fascinating even for the uninitiated. With our work not only 'minor', but 'minimal', even 'dwarf' we hope to create a contact, even empathy, between the public and new scientific and aesthetic, while the arts 'more' of everything fuck it. So
art as a means 'popular' for the dissemination of scientific knowledge?
Too. We feel the need to get out of the scientific and technological laboratories also high profile, that all he approprino, that everyone 'surprise'. Today we do not use brushes but nanotechnology, using what science has to offer. But this is only the beginning. We do not want to feel connected to the power of nanotechnology. There are many other technologies that we apply artistically. Our goal is to open a laboratory at the Polytechnic, where gather the input they receive from researchers and artistic reworking. A modern version of the ancient art workshops. In this regard there is one aspect that has extremely impressed: there is a period in which Researchers are testing the machines and they do playing just created (for example, in the case of nanotechnology to create tiny objects 'profane'). We would like to include in the gap between research and play and use it to communicate something. The laboratory would make it stable and this project would provide to people who have worked with us so far to continue to specialize in this area hybrid 'technology-art': a professional unusual, futuristic.
the first exhibition of NanoArt as a reaction you expect from the public and what is then actually been?
Everything went as expected: it creates a kind of 'aesthetic embarrassment' why people did not know how to relate to the work. On the other hand it is the silicon chip placed on a pedestal and watching them do not see anything, except that the technicians put markers to define the scope, immense, in which the work is. The gaze of the viewer runs the captions and find peace only when he passes the enlargements made with a scanning microscope and certified by the University on the wall. Only by providing the 'evidence' proves that the work exists, otherwise it might not be there: an 'aesthetic paradox' to which the viewer should 'trust' of the artist. Perhaps, to educate this kind of vision, and 'aesthetic experience', should, before you get to just expose chip (which would be typical artistic provocation), groped the way of interaction, it set forth the optical microscopes. The problem is that not all the works are so 'great' can be seen by light microscopy and the machines that it would take, the FESEM scanning electron microscopes, can only be used in laboratory and technical experts.
The 'nanoparticles' produced so far are very different from each other: the current size and 'busy', Beyond the Pillars of Hercules is 'science fiction', Dumb reader is a gag. There is a thread? The common thread is
a taste for paradox, contradiction, irony and intellectual challenge. For example, the reader is emblematic Dumb: use technology to produce 'rubbish' in fact is nothing but a metaphor for futility, when the danger of certain technology if adopted uncritically or speculatively. But, mind you, this book can be read as a divertissement. For us it is very important that the first level of interpretation is straightforward, then it is obvious that depending on the background of those who observe the limits of interpretation can be multiplied indefinitely: it is the 'semantic step' ...
not believe that the potential expressive of nanotechnology can result in the visible-invisible dichotomy? Yes
Since we do not want our becoming a way, we've got many new projects involving other technologies, in line with the idea of \u200b\u200b'didactic' where did the first wave.
Are you fascinated by science fiction?
We are fascinated by borders, indistinct, of science. More details from the territories and spaces scientific than those of single undisciplined imagination. But then sometimes the borders are blurred: there are things 'out there' who have read so different from ours contemporaneramente to appear as real and fantastic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment