"The Future Of Science Is…Art?" by Jonah Lehrer.
It’sa really good read, even if Mr. Lehrer comes off as having no knowledgeof contemporary art other than Richard Serra, and let’s face it, asamazing as he is, he’s old news. Here’s an extract that makes me reallyexcited about the possibilities of science and art shacking up:
"It’s time for the dialogue between our two cultures to become astandard part of the scientific method. (Our universities could beginby offering a "Poetry for Physicists" class.) But it’s also crucial totake our scientific metaphors beyond the realm of the metaphorical, sowe can better understand the consequences of our theories. Artgalleries should be filled with disorienting evocations of stringtheory and the EPR paradox. Every theoretical physics department shouldsupport an artist-in-residence. Too often, modern physics seems remoteand irrelevant, its suppositions so strange they’re meaningless. Thearts can help us reattach physics to the world we experience."
I’malso slightly bothered by his terribly anachronistic (andsomewhat ignorant) working definition of art as mainly poets andpainters. Several moments in the article spread the cheese prettythickly, but if you can get past that, he raises some reallyinteresting points and offers some great ideas about how to make artmore relevant.