The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

Ridley Scott Just Needs a Little Focus: A Review of the Martian

vlicata — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:10:10 +0000

Ridley Scott Just Needs a Little Focus: A Review of the Martian

The Martian is a feel-good, science positive, uplifting film about the power of the human spirit, botany, and engineering. It looked, from the credits, like it had at least 8 scientific advisors from NASA (and possibly other places). Too bad that Ridley Scott only half listened to them. As one of the primary sci-fi filmmakers working today, it’s kind of amazing how a lot of the science in Ridley Scott’s films sort of leaves a chalky taste in the mouth. (Take a look at this link for a scathing review of the science in Prometheus).

It’s clear that The Martian is science-positive – the main character’s facility with everything from chemistry to botany to electrical engineering is quite inspiring, even though, this itself it is one of the not-quite-realistic elements of the movie (I am told that the book does a better job of making Mark’s broad spectrum of practical knowledge believable rather than seeming almost savant-like as in the movie).

So, spoilers ahead, what’s good, what’s bad in The Martian:

Good:
1) A botanist as the hero! A scientist as the hero! And a plot that involves explaining what Mark was doing as he was doing it (although never far from the surface).
2) The whole problem solving aesthetic of the movie really captures the science and engineering spirit beautifully.
3) “I’m going to have to science the shit out of this” – what a great line!

Please don’t get me wrong – the Martian, on the whole, is one of the most science positive, science-career-inspiring movies to hit theaters in a long time – it is a step in the right direction – a big step in the right direction. But it’s only another step on a road that stretches out a bit farther into the future.

Sloppy Movie Science:
1) The hurricane force dust storm on Mars has already been acknowledged by the author of the book, and widely discussed, as a scientific inaccuracy “necessary” to the plot. This is, in my opinion, just a little bit lazy plotting and a desire for some dramatic visuals. There are many other possible reasons that Mark might have been left on Mars that are more realistic, but maybe less dramatic.
2) Making water from hydrazine. Hmm…hydrazine is rather toxic. Mark doesn’t wear any protective gear while working with it. He probably would have killed himself before getting much water, especially working with it as depicted in the movie.
3) The ship itself seems a bit on the absurdly large side – lots of long, apparently empty cylindrical corridors to fly through at high speed in microgravity – looks neat, doesn’t really match the reality of the ISS or any other ship ever yet sent into space. It even makes the USS Enterprise look cramped. Similar giant ship silliness has been pointed out for Prometheus.
4) Jessica Chastain as the commander of the mission? Couldn’t they get Zooey Deschanel? Or Sarah Jessica Parker? Could this be an embedded hilarious joke by the director? Apparently whoever cast the film was not allowed to meet any real astronauts. Jessica Chastain is a wonderful actress, she is just not the right actress for this part –she exudes little or no confidence, clarity, competence, intelligence, control or inherent leadership qualities of any kind. I don’t believe I would feel very safe on a ship in her command. Check out Anamaria Marinca in Europa Report if you want to see how one should cast this part. Check out any armed forces commercial on television if you want to see more appropriate portrayals.
5) I hypothesize that upon seeing astronauts scampering and scooting, and hopping along the outside of the space ship WITHOUT ANY TETHERS, that all 8 NASA advisors probably felt faint and secretly wondered if it was too late to take their name off the credits but still cash their checks. This is only a hypothesis, of course.
6) Is there really no other way to slow the ship down other than blowing parts of it up? Well, okay, none that involve awesome explosions in space (complete with sound! Just like in Star Wars, but unlike in 2001 A Space Odyssey, where accuracy was a bit more in evidence).
7) There might be an average 12-13 minute communication delay between Mars and Earth, but the much longer communication delays between “what Mark was doing” and “when the people on Earth figured out what he was doing” was kind of painful to watch, and underscored how fortunate it was that Mark seemed to be a cross between Einstein, Tesla, and George Washington Carver.
8) Like the dust storm that starts the movie, the whole rescue scene is way over the top, even beyond the lack of astronaut tethers (for everyone but Jessica, can’t lose her). This also has been discussed in a review in the Guardian.

It’s just weird that Ridley Scott, in a movie where accuracy actually makes more of a difference to the story, ignores enough science details to make an otherwise wonderful science movie become cringe-worthy every few minutes or so. I recently was working with a high school science teacher who said he had to walk out on the movie because the buildup of little mistakes became too great for him to tolerate. In general accuracy is more important in “near” sci-fi than in “far-in-the-future” sci-fi, and so matters more to the believability and integrity of the story in “The Martian” than in, for example, “Prometheus”. Maybe, but just maybe, with a little more attention to detail (i.e. maybe the level of detail one might have found if this were a movie about the French Revolution, for example), maybe “The Martian” wouldn’t have been nominated in the Best Musical or Comedy section of the Golden Globes. But this is only a hypothesis.

Despite all this grousing about details, The Martian is the most science positive blockbuster level movie from Hollywood in some time – and that alone is an important and significant accomplishment in my little opinion – just remember to squint through the parts that remind you of some of the answers you typically find on high school science tests – mostly well meaning, but not quite in tune with reality.

vlicata Thu, 03/31/2016 - 10:10

Tags

Knoxville '82: Where Miscellany Thrive

Links to interesting sites and discussion of them

Links to Other Conversations and Articles

Movie discussion

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

The Film Building

Uncategorized

I was more bothered by,

(a) how could he have an unlimited supply of Oxygen.
(b) The problem of radiation exposure without major protection.

The dust storm didn't seem that bad to me, it only had to threaten the return rocket, and allow debris to fly.

Of course as a guy who has had a long career in computing, hero #2 was the trajectories calculating kid*. Did he get fired for slipping the rescue possibility to the crew? But, sitting in the actual supercomputer? Looked great photographically, but even if the problem couldn't have be done on an average PC, he wouldn't need to be within several thousand miles of the actual compute server.

* Extra points for potential inspiration of African Americans thinking about STEM potential career path.

Replacing a blown hatch with duct tape re-enforced plastic film was also pretty egregious. Holding back .1 pounds per square inch would be unlikely, anything close to earth atmosphere would a at least a hundred times more pressure than that could possibly hold...

Reading the book would help. The problem being that the movie would be something like 5 hours long with lots of technical monologues to stay fully accurate. Oxygen is not a problem if you have plenty of energy - i.e. a solar array - and a machine for using that energy to split CO2.

It's a bit like the LOTR movies, which to me make very little sense without the books because so much is cut out of the movies - which makes you wonder how long the movies would have to be for completeness..

Dance Your Ph.D. - 2013 Winners Announced!

vlicata — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:30:38 +0000

Dance Your Ph.D. - 2013 Winners Announced!

It's time again for John Bohannon's annual "Dance Your Ph.D." contest. This year, in my opinion, there are even more high quality entries than in previous years! (I was one of the judges who did the first round of choices...the "winners" were then chosen by a panel that includes several professional dancers (for several years it has been members of Pilobulus)). And they are all now posted online ("winners" at the link above - all the videos are posted here - because really they are ALL winners in my opinion.

And if you can come up with more difficult ways to try to explain science - we could start some other awesome contests. Explain your Ph.D. in poetry. Design a dress or suit that explains your Ph.D. Knit your Ph.D. Origami your Ph.D. Puppet Theatre Your Ph.D. Stop-Motion Animate Your Ph.D. Ballon Animalize Your Ph.D. But until then...

Dance! Dance! Dance!

vlicata Thu, 11/21/2013 - 10:30

Tags

Knoxville '82: Where Miscellany Thrive

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

arts integration

dance

science communication

Sacred Waste: a Polymeric Ritual at the New Orleans Fringe Festival

vlicata — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:10:21 +0000

Sacred Waste: a Polymeric Ritual at the New Orleans Fringe Festival

I have a small part in a show called SACRED WASTE which was created by LSU Ph.D. student Bonny McDonald – which is playing in the upcoming New Orleans Fringe Fest. The show involves dance, poetry, ritual, elaborate costumes (made of 100% recycled plastic), and explores many aspects of the relationship between humans and plastic – including the manufacture of it here in Louisiana, and some introductory polymer chemistry! SACRED WASTE was one of 30 shows jury selected to play in the New Orleans Fringe Festival (out of > 200 entries).

This performance art show is a unique blend of art and science – it conveys some of its information in some unusual and compelling ways: the costumes, the set, and all the props are made of discarded plastic – each costume is made of 100-300 plastic bags, one costume is made of about 300 plastic bottle caps, there's a dragon made of about 3000 bags, and a tree made of plastic – yet we're reminded that all the plastic on stage during the show only represents the amount of plastic Americans discard about every 100 milliseconds. One scene in the show personifies the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in a whirling dance…one scene involves a shaman ecstatically scrawling the structures of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene on a plastic screen…one scene depicts the flow of plastic through a bird's body. Each scene in the show explores a different aspect of our relationship with plastic and mixes science with mysticism, animal instincts with consumerism, creation myths with post-apocalyptic evolution and the "new nature". If we taught more science this way (just a little more of it, certainly not all of it) – we might change a lot of people's attitude toward science, in the way that this whole show hopefully also changes its audience's attitudes toward plastic.

The New Orleans Fringe Fest has nearly 80 total shows (30 juried plus 47 "Bring Your Own Venue" shows) and it likes to feature very oddball stuff (one of its own tag lines is "wild, weird, fresh original theater of all types"). Since almost the whole cast is from Baton Rouge, we (like many of the fringe shows) are shelling out a lot of our own money to finance staying in New Orleans for the duration of the festival and mounting the show (fringe fest shows around the world are all a labor of love – even after ticket sales, a fringe show typically costs the performers lots of money – even the famous Edinburgh Fringe Fest strongly reminds participants of this in their guidelines). To try to cover some of our expenses we've started a Kickstarter campaign – so if you are so inclined, please visit our SACRED WASTE Kickstarter page (only active for the next 3 weeks) and help us ease the financial burden of taking the show to the Fringe Festival.

(Photo by Max Trombly, showing the creator of the show, Bonny McDonald (left), and Jen LeBlanc (right).)

vlicata Thu, 10/31/2013 - 15:10

Tags

NatureLand: What They Used to Call the Environment

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

Attempts at how to categorize SciArt

vlicata — Sun, 19 May 2013 13:28:17 +0000

Attempts at how to categorize SciArt

I was discussing SciArt on several occasions with different people recently and was fishing for a way to classify different SciArt in order to make a particular point - the point being that the type of SciArt I find most interesting and valuable is in the minority. Basically, it seems there are 3 (or maybe 4) general types of SciArt: informational, inspirational, and degradational. I should note that mostly I am talking about SciArt that is performed - mostly plays and movies. Although probably some variant of this can be applied to visual arts or music and such.

Degradational is when the science or the scientists are depicted as evil or as the cause of problems - you know the type: Jurassic Park and such. Inspirational (which might need some subcategories) - is when there is science in a piece of art, but the science is just there as set decoration, or because a main character is a scientist, or because some minor plot points hinge on some sciencey-sounding mumbo-jumbo-speak that (supposedly) makes the audience feel that serious science has saved the day (or at least moved the plot forward incrementally). Inspirational SciArt is the bulk of what is out there - pushing 98% in my opinion (mostly because of a significant decrease in degradational SciArt, which used to occupy a sizable portion of what was out there).

In the minority, however, is informational SciArt. I am not talking about documentaries here - or Nova specials - they are clearly informational and have a lot of artistry to them, but in my opinion are in a different genre than SciArt. So what is informational SciArt: it is a play or a movie that stands on its own in terms of plot or character but at the same time has a LOT of real and accurate science in it (or culture of science - how scientists act and such). Can you think of many of these? Not many out there, eh. And many of the ones that are out there are medically oriented (because people can relate better to something medical - as opposed to say, something about neutrinos or identifying a new species of frog). Movies like Contagion or Contact or Gorillas in the Mist or Awakenings, or October Sky, or And the Band Played On, or the classic 2001 - these are at least moving in the direction of informational SciArt - and they are definitely more than inspirational. What sets these movies apart from "inspirational" ones? The fact that you can walk away from these movies and actually have learned some real science (or science culture) - even among these, however, the amount of science information is wildly variant (and mostly on the lower side). Think of "A Beautiful Mind" - is it informational because there is a 30 second recap of one of John Nash's therories? Or is it really more suitable for the "inspirational" category?

Why bring this up? I feel that the informational SciArt category has long been in the minority and largely because the commercial side of the SciArt couple is afraid that audiences don't want to see things with lots of real information in them - movies or plays. Yet in day to day conversations, with scientists and non-scientists alike - I continually hear people say that they really enjoy learning new science through movies or television shows or even plays (although the fraction of informational SciArt plays is even lower than that for movies and television). So why not trust that people want to pack some of their entertainment with science and let's start seeing more informational SciArt - or at least information heavy SciArt. When you see something labelled as SciArt - something funded by the Sloan Foundation or something in the Imagine Science Film Festival - both fantastic programs, but both of which support 98% inspirational SciArt - when you see SciArt - talk it up - did you learn any science from it? If not - ask: would it have been improved or more interesting if there had been more hard science in it? There is certainly a place for inspirational SciArt - art that intrigues and excites us about science - but there also needs to be more of a place for informational SciArt out there - at least more than 2%, which, in my opinion, is even an optimistic estimate of what is out there right now.

vlicata Sun, 05/19/2013 - 09:28

Tags

Movie discussion

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

Art

science and art

science in the movies

science on film

science outreach

science popularization

Bravo! Thank you for this piece. As someone who trained in the arts as well as the sciences and studied the role of scientists in popular media during my MSc this is a topic close to my heart. A true melding of science and art can only help us to develop our potential and break down artificial barriers. Films/tv/theatre and novels can aid the informational SciArt if produced in such a way that the audience is attracted by a good plot and interesting characters. Visual art, which I am now mostly involved with can provide inspirational SciArt but I do feel that it is within scripting and performance that informational Sci Art can best be presented.

Sorry I didn't notice this post until now. I agree completely that there are many opportunities to pack more scientific information into artistic formats. In my case I'm especially interested in science-based music. My database at SingAboutScience.org allows teachers (or anyone) to search for a keyword ("polymerase," "enzyme," whatever is being taught) and see what sorts of existing songs mention this term. Some of them might even be useful in the classroom!

I poked around on your sing about science website Greg - it is awesome!

Science Consulting for the Movies

vlicata — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:39:00 +0000

Science Consulting for the Movies

I recently read David Kirby's new book on science film consulting. This book is an absolute must-read for anyone even remotely or subconsciously interested in being a science consultant for the next Iron Man or Transformers, or smaller budget real-life dramas with real-life science in them. His book is both easy and interesting to read - and is filled with information. He explores the history of science-consulting, going all the way back to "Woman in the Moon" and of course the still canonical "2001: A Space Odyssey", and discusses a large number of recent examples. He does not glorify the status of the movie science consultant - on the contrary he discusses both the positives and negatives in interesting and substantial detail. He also spends a significant amount of text delving into academic/communication studies issues connected to science consulting, such as the concept of science films as "virtual witnessing technologies", and the design of as yet unknown science as exercises in "speculative modeling"...and such - and even makes these more academic sections accessible and interesting.

Kirby interviewed a large number of consultants and filmmakers for the book, and he makes it clear that the science consultant is just that: a consultant, someone who can give advice which is as often, or more often, discounted than it is utilized. He discusses the highly variable relationships with directors: some of whom hire science consultants seemingly solely for the purpose of ignoring every single piece of advice they offer, and some of whom rely heavily on science advisors to help them shape the drama, the story, the setting, and the characters. He emphasizes that there has not been a single science advisor in the history of film who has walked away from a film saying, "Ah, everything was accurate" - never, ever, ever. When the director does take accurate science seriously, the result is always a hybrid of real science and cringe-worthy gobbledygook. Probably one of Kirby's most illuminating conclusions is when he notes that scientists often think there is a tension in film-making between the story/entertainment content and the science-accuracy content. Kirby says this is a myth that lives in the minds of scientists - there is no such tension between science and entertainment: entertainment issues always win: always. When the science enhances the entertainment or story, it gets included.

But all this is not to say that Kirby, or the many science-consultants he interviewed for the book, view science-consulting as futile or from a predominantly negative perspective. Quite the contrary - he sees science consulting as an effective way to get a variety of scientific concepts into the mainstream consciousness. And while he cautions that science in the movies, for some of the reasons described above, will never be fully accurate - that scientists should count any enhancement of science accuracy in the movies as successful. The realistic picture of science consulting that Kirby paints is tremendously useful to anyone considering doing paid or pro bono science consulting. If you have any need or desire for real creative control on a project, then science consulting is probably not for you - and you'd be best off working on your own "entertainment" projects, like an increasing number of scientists are doing. If, however, you want to experience the fun of working with the talented teams of people who put together both big and small budget films, and if you want to help make the world of cinema a little more science-savvy and a little less science-cringe-worthy, then science consulting can be quite enjoyable, and sometimes lucrative. As for how to become a science consultant: according to Kirby, this often involves google-induced phone calls from producers to unsuspecting scientists, but Kirby's book also describes a number of different ways for scientists to try to purposefully get involved in this growing new form of science outreach.

vlicata Sun, 04/08/2012 - 18:39

Tags

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

science in the movies

science on film

And I'm willing to bet his book does not take into account botany. The adventure hero is deep in the African jungle, and there just to his left is a neotropical plant. No counting how many movies have been ruined by the ignoring plants, but they are counting on plant blindness, that most people won't notice. The Phytophactor does. Wish someone would pay me for getting it right.

Would love to see some movie reviews

SciArt on the Bayou

vlicata — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:24:21 +0000

SciArt on the Bayou

The chair of the Theatre Dept. here at LSU and I have begun co-producing a new "SciArt Conversation Series" here at LSU -- where we get scientists and artists on stage together at the same time for informal presentations of their work. We are trying to pick combinations that have some sort of real or semantic overlap. Our first one, which we just called "Silk", had an entomologist talking about the evolution of spiders and spider silk along with a choreographer and two dancers demonstrating and explaining dance moves on hanging silks.

This first one had a small but very vocal and participatory audience - first they peppered the entomologist with a number of questions, then about a half-dozen of them got up to try a simple move on the hanging silks - to the great amusement of the rest of the audience. The whole presentation was fun and informal - the scientist and the choreographer convened for about 10 minutes beforehand and found perfect places to switch back and forth during the presentation - so a bit about spiders, then a few moves on the silks, then spiders, then silks - with the spider "talk" moving from evolutionarily older to more modern spiders, while the demonstrated silk dance moves went from simple to more complex and dangerous looking.

We plan to do this once a month here at LSU - the rest of this semester, then breaking for summer and starting up again when the school year starts - and see how it evolves and how well it catches on. Our second one - coming up in about a week, is called "String Theory" - we are going to have a string theorist in a staged debate with a loop gravity specialist, along with two musicians from a group called The Incense Merchants playing improvisational/experimental compositions on violin and cello. If you are in the Baton Rouge area, it will be March 31, at 7pm, in the Music and Dramatic Arts building, and it is free - just show up - both the physicists and the musicians have been asked to keep it accessible for a general audience.

vlicata Thu, 03/24/2011 - 12:24

Tags

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

science popularization

Crickets chirping and Collider Whales

worldsfair — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:10:00 +0000

Crickets chirping and Collider Whales

Sorry it's been a bit quiet here lately. Things have been busy at the museum, and I've also been writing in other places. In particular, These days I'm a guest blogger at Boing Boing, and on top of that, I'm also having fun starting a children's novel.

This novel has a mouthful of a title, Lizzie Popperfont and the Collider Whale Tale, and it's been partly inspired by my time here at the Natural History Museum. More importantly, there's going to be an underlying and subtle narrative that asks, "What happens to society and culture when only self interested elites are aware of the Scientific Method?" and "What happens if such a culture is allowed to brew for hundreds of years?"

This might sound a little dry, but the basic premise is that many of things we can do with science these days would appear downright magical to someone from the past. More so, if my more unscrupulous characters purposely disguise it in aesthetics that promote the idea of magical, spiritual or divine abilities. Creative text about science is what I like doing best, so I figured why not a children's story?

Oh yeah, there's also a blue whale, and a synchrotron, and a GM organism named Kepler (at least according to some of my notes). I also enjoyed the "I'm a science geek" moment when I used the word Entropy in the first chapter.

Right now, the plan is to write it in full view, so you can read along if you like, although don't forget that it is a work in progress. I happen to be an editing freak, so the text you see will definitely change multiple times, especially after I read it to my own kids. However, my first priority is to just get a reasonable first/second edit down. I do plan on finishing it, and the idea of publishing it proper is there in my mind, but sort of a secondary thing right now.

Anyway, go check it out if you're curious, and you can also let me know what you think.

(Follow David on twitter @dnghub)

worldsfair Tue, 11/02/2010 - 05:10

Tags

About writing generally

Gift Shop & Haberdashery

Knoxville '82: Where Miscellany Thrive

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

For big kids,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x2n575v0233272r8/

Do you like "The Big Bang Theory"? - Part 2: the television show.

vlicata — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:00:25 +0000

Do you like "The Big Bang Theory"? - Part 2: the television show.

Part 1 of "Do You Like the Big Bang Theory?", addressed whether one emotionally "likes" the scientific theories one works on - and how or if that should impact one's work. Here I'd like to talk about the television show.

"The Big Bang Theory" has been highly touted and praised as being the best science-in-fiction on regular television, but it has also been criticized for being its rather demeaning portrayal of science grad students. I think the show is extremely funny - and I mostly enjoy watching it for that reason. Other than "2.5 Men", it's probably the funniest show on regular tv (and comes from the same producer, who apparently has a somewhat misogynist reputation).

However, I personally have to agree with those who criticize its much touted "science content". Sure the equations on the white board are (mostly) correct, and sure there are scattered references to real science - but the much ballyhooed science content seems to be quite problematic to me: it's rare to finish watching a show and actually be able to describe any real science. Much of it is what we called "techno-babble" in the "Science in the Theater and on Film" course that I teach. "Techno-babble" = where the words the character says, and the facts given, are technically correct (often because they were vetted by a scientific consultant), but where no real scientific information is actually conveyed to the audience.

One of the main science consultants to the show (David Saltzberg) recently has tried to correct some of this problem by creating a blog where he discussed the techno-babble utterings in more detail and explains what they actually mean - but how many show viewers run to this blog after the show to find out what each "techno-babble" moment actually means?

Many other people (including Zuska, who's blog I really enjoy -- see links below) have discussed the show's "stereotypical" characterizations from a number of interesting angles. It seems to me that its portrayal of astrophysics (and computer science) grad students and scientists goes beyond stereotyping into downright vilification. Stereotyping of scientists as nerdy and geeky and socially awkward is fine - we mostly are - ( for example, the over-the-top geeky scientists characterizations in the old Kids in the Hall movie "Brain Candy" are great, hit quite close to home, and are hilarious - I use that movie in my "Science in the Theater and on Film" class and we deconstruct all the little details of the geeky characterizations).

But, in contrast, in "The Big Bang Theory" the lead character (and clearly smartest of the characters) is downright conniving and often portrayed as a budding "evil genius" with little or no altruism or desire to make the world a better place - it's a bit denigrating to both scientists and to people with mild Aspberger's (which his character is purported to have). The rest of the characters are not much better - but if you look across the spectrum of characters - the smarter they are on the show, the less likable or generous they are. In some ways it's the old "evil genius" problem in a new package.

So, I guess to summarize: I do like the show, and I watch it every once in a while and find it funny, but if this is as far as we've gotten in the incorporation of real science into fiction on television, we definitely have orders of magnitude farther to go.

I've also enjoyed several other really good posts about the show:

From the Science and Entertainment Exchange

From the mouth of Thus Spake Zuska

Discover Magazine weighs in on the issue

David Saltzberg's "teachable moment" site

vlicata Sun, 08/15/2010 - 15:00

Tags

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

science in fiction

science on film

scientist stereotypes

television shows

But, in contrast, in "The Big Bang Theory" the lead character (and clearly smartest of the characters) is downright conniving and often portrayed as a budding "evil genius" with little or no altruism or desire to make the world a better place - it's a bit denigrating to both scientists and to people with mild Aspberger's (which his character is purported to have).

"Budding evil"? You've got to be kidding. Have you ever actually watched the show? Geez, if you're referring to Sheldon, this is about as off-base and downright wrong of a characterization of the character as I've ever seen. Sheldon is actually more of a naif, who, because his mind is all science, is unable to understand normal human interactions and is endlessly getting into trouble because of it, his extreme intelligence notwithstanding and his science ability unable to help him. You can argue if you don't like that portrayal, but, jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, at least get the characterization right.

"Budding evil"? You've got to be kidding. Have you ever actually watched the show? Geez, if you're referring to Sheldon, this is about as off-base and downright wrong of a characterization of the character as I've ever seen. Sheldon is actually more of a naif, who, because his mind is all science, is unable to understand normal human interactions and is endlessly getting into trouble because of it, his extreme intelligence notwithstanding and his science ability unable to help him. You can argue if you don't like that portrayal, but, jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, at least get the characterization right.

Uhhh... I've known naifs. There is no difference between his portrayal and yours.

Here is another ScienceBlogs.com author's take on the show, which I found useful:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/04/the_big_blah_theory.php
I haven't really watched it myself, but the "nervous character gets drunk before a big speech" episode was shown on my last plane flight and, even without the sound, I could tell that it was kind of lame.

I dont mind the techno-babble at all. That is precisely how we (virologists) sound to casual observers. Its not a show about 'teaching science', its a 'peek into the funny lives of these scientists'.

The only problem I have with the show is how they portray biology. Im assuming that for all their physics/engineering consultants, they have zero biology consultants. There is no biology techno-babble, and its treated like a hobby the main characters do in their free time-- in other words, "biology is easy".

If I explained what I do every day, in techno-babble, to Sheldon, he would make that twitchy face he always does when hes frustrated.

But I dont have a pole up my butt, therefore, I think BBT is one of the funniest shows on TV.

it's a bit denigrating to both scientists and to people with mild Aspberger's

It's "Asperger's", actually. I wouldn't even bother with a correction at all, except it reminds me of something funny.

Our little boy with Asperger's was once asked how he'd like his hamburger. He replied indignantly, "I don't have hamburgers, I have Asperger's!" Of course, the way he says it, it doesn't sound like "asp" burgers...

@ Orac: Yeah, I've got to agree with Adam_Y -- it's not about the source/intent, but about the result. Sheldon is always manipulating people, hiding information for his own gain, sometimes endangering people because of it, and all the other characters often react accordingly with frequent utterings of how much they'd like to strangle him, etc. I like your description of why he is a "budding evil genius", but I'd still say he is one, although he's always just on the edge of being able to be saved.

@ERV: It's definitely not a show about "teaching science", but the point I wanted to make is that is is being highly touted as a 1) show that does teach about science, and 2) that has a lot of science in it, and 3) that it represents the future of incorporating real science into television shows -- and my post attempts to say that if it actually does any of these things, they are in a very embryonic state relative to where they could be. As I noted in the post, I also agree that it is one of the funniest shows on tv, which is one reason why it is worth discussing.

@Ray: thanks for the story and the correction (I'll fix it in the post).

Vince-- Sorry, Vince. I didnt mean to imply you had a pole up your butt, but I think a lot of people do have a poles up their butts about this show :)

As far as Sheldon goes, you all are nuts. I would date him in a second. Cute. Smart. Has a good job that he loves. Extremely motivated. Always straightforward. Cant lie. That boy is worth his weight in gold... well, I probably weigh more than he does... but you know what I mean. I think his boyfriend potential has been underutilized, and I hope they dont throw it all away next season.

You mean people actually watch that show? Seriously?

Oh, wow. You really don't get the show.

1. Sheldon Coooper is not the lead. Leonard is the lead. Sheldon is his foil, the major male supporting character, etc.
2. Sheldon is in fact, not evil. He's just very self-centered, and he can't help it. And I know plenty of Aspies and his generosity and honesty are some of the traits that I see in my friends that make them my friends (however, my friends are a little better socialized). He's also probably OCD.
3. Sheldon is assumed to be smarter than Leonard by Sheldon, and by Leonard's mother, but so far, I'm not convinced the matter is clearly defined. For one thing, there are many aspects to intelligence; besides physics, they are both musical, and Leonard learned social skills Sheldon has not developed yet.
4. The sleaze of the group, Howard, is the only one who has a Master's rather than a Ph.D. 0-- if you measure intelligence by that (as Sheldon does), the least intelligent of the geeks is the most evil.
5. It has been noted that working as faculty in a university, they don't make as much money as they could have with the same amount of education and a different focus. They stand by their friends, even when it's difficult. Every one of them has gone out of their way to help each other, even when it was unpleasent and inconvenient.

Hmmm... maybe you meant Leslie is the most intelligent (she corrected Sheldon's whiteboard) and most evil. That would be more arguable, but I think it's understood that she probably is more kindly in her normal social group, and that her vendetta against Sheldon is entirely justified by his sexist remarks to her.

I disagree with the notion that Sheldon is evil. I also, subjectively, disagree with it being offensive to people with Asperger's, since I myself have AS. I think it's a great show!

The art of Josh Keyes: Calm but strangely disturbing imagery of wildlife and their "natural" surroundings.

worldsfair — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:54:58 +0000

The art of Josh Keyes: Calm but strangely disturbing imagery of wildlife and their "natural" surroundings.

(Lifted, 2009, 40"x30", acrylic on panel)

You can see more at this link. Let me know if you find yourself both quietly mesmorized and disturbed as you take in his images.

From his "about" page:

Biography

Josh Keyes was born in Tacoma, Washington. He received a BFA in 1992 from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and an MFA in 1998 from Yale. Eighteenth-century aesthetics and philosophies, particularly those of the Neoclassical and Romantic movements, shape his work. Keyes is drawn to the clinical and often cold vocabulary of scientific textbook illustrations, which express the empirical "truth" of the world and natural phenomena. He infuses into a rational stage set many references to contemporary events along with images and themes from his personal mythology and experience. These elements come together in an unsettling vision, one that speaks to the hope, fear, and anxiety of our time. Keyes currently lives and works in Portland Oregon with his wife, graphic designer Lisa Ericson.

Excerpt from "Animal Planet", by George Melrod

Alternately passionate and playful, outraged and absurd, the artwork of Josh Keyes is memorable both for its resonant imagery and the haunting themes those images convey. Vividly imagined and exquisitely realized, his work is at once highly personal and very much of its time. While it spans a variety of approaches, Keyes' overall subject matter remains consistent, evincing a fascination with the intersection of the animal realm and the built human landscape, and the imperiled role of wilderness in a rapidly changing global environment.

Perhaps these pictures aren't really all about animals but about the conflict between nature and society within our own human consciousness. Keyes' images, in their way, suggest that the division between an intricately self-absorbed society and the connection to nature within us is an artificial one that can no longer be sustained. One can read his work as a plea to let the natural collective consciousness within us emerge, to find a balance within ourselves that contains a place for the other creatures of this planet, with whom we are more connected and co-dependent than we may care to admit.

Keyes' artworks are neither optimistic nor nihilistic. If anything, they seem to hover between fear and fury, between sorrow and acceptance. But they do contain a level of urgency, addressing such exigent issues as the extinction of species and the emergence of a new global topography. In grafting a dreamlike pictorial language to a passionate ecological concern, he has not only carved out a fertile chunk of postmodern art world territory, but found his own bully pulpit, and catharsis.

George Melrod, editor of Art Ltd. Magazine. He has written extensively about contemporary art and culture for Art News, Art in America, Art & Antiques, among many other publications.

worldsfair Tue, 08/03/2010 - 23:54

Tags

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

Dance Your Ph.D.: One Month till the Duedate!

vlicata — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:39:50 +0000

Dance Your Ph.D.: One Month till the Duedate!

There is one month to go to submit to the 2010 "Dance Your Ph.D" Contest! Entries are due by September 1st. My lab previously won in the Professor category, so I get to be one of the judges for the 2010 contest. This is our dance from the 2009 contest:

And what we won was: a real dance! Jenn Liang Chaboud, a real choreographer in Chicago, created a dance based on one of our lab's publications in JBC, here is the dance she created:

This is Science: Jenn Liang Chaboud from Red Velvet Swing on Vimeo.

The two muscular guys are Klenow and Klentaq DNA polymerases, the women are all DNA.

THIS YEAR's CONTEST:
This time, instead of doing student, postdoc, and professor categories they are doing discipline specific categories: physics, chemistry, biology, and social sciences. Winners each get $500 and will have their videos screened at this year's Imagine Science Film Festival (ISFF) in New York.

This ongoing science-and-dance experiment was started by John Bohannon several years ago - starting at only one university and now going worldwide thanks to help and sponsorship from the AAAS (aka the journal Science). And now he's teamed up with Alexis Gambis of ISFF in what seems a natural collaboration.

How can you help support this experiment in science and the arts? SUBMIT!

Don't worry about technical quality of the video, don't worry about dance skills, don't worry about looking silly (look at our video) - this "contest"/experiment is about communicating science through one of the most esoteric of the arts. If science can be communicated through dance, then it most certainly can be communicated through plays, film, visual art, and (gasp) public lectures. It is a very exciting ongoing experiment - so go to gonzolabs and watch them and push through that activation barrier and submit something!

vlicata Sat, 07/31/2010 - 05:39

Tags

The Art/Science (Non?)Divide Building

science popularization

Totally awesome.

Born, not Asked is my ring tone. Brilliant.