Copyright The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles
Times 2003. Allrights reserved.)
Just because a discipline still exists largely in
science fiction is no reason it can't have its own university
department. The California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA and UC
Santa Barbara means to take us beyond the computer chip to a world
where molecules themselves can be controlled, with revolutionary
implications for medicine, engineering and, well, fashion. If all of
this is tough to envision, look no farther than UCLA, where
professor Victoria Vesna, media arts department chairwoman, is
mounting a series of ambitious nano-themed art installations in
collaboration with nano- scientist James Gimzewski and others. The
Zero@ wavefunction art show is online at
www.notime.arts.ucla.edu/zerowave; the next project debuts at
LACMALab in December. We asked Vesna to go molecular on us.
Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist as well as an
artist, but these days you can dump the contents of your closet on
the floor and have an award-winning art installation. What do
nanoscience and art have to do with each other?
Nanoscientists more than other scientists need to
talk to creative people because they cannot use the same paradigm
that has been used in scientific research. Imagine it's 1903. You
and I are sitting in front of a gas lamp and you tell me you heard
about something called electricity. You and I can't imagine what
that's going to mean in 100 years. The genome was just decoded.
There are satellites orbiting our planet. We're sitting here talking
on our cell phones and we think we're so cool, but we have no idea
where we're going to be in another 100 years.
The "Matrix" films paint a disastrous picture of
humanity's interface with technology. In the future, will our bodies
be covered in data ports?
We are the ultimate nanomachines. Nature doesn't
build with machines. It builds with molecules.
What are "nanobots"--and will they pay our bills
and take out the trash?
The classic example is an imaginary being on a
molecular scale that repairs cells. You would have your body
repaired with this nanobot.
Your art project attempts to give visitors a feel
for nanotechnology. How does it work?
The idea is to take the Buckminster Fullerene
molecule, blow it up on large buildings and allow people to
manipulate it with their shadows. They are enacting what happens on
a molecular scale. There's a playful and beautiful movement. If you
don't know anything about nanotech, you still have a great
experience. We also started Windows to Nanotech [a Web-cam tour],
where we have cameras scanning microscopes and you can look through
and walk through the lab.
Is this art imitating life, life imitating art, or
. . . ?
A nanoscientist has to work with biologists,
chemists, engineers, you name it. They cannot be a separate
discipline. Scientists who are trying to address molecular scale
creatively gravitate toward artists and writers who are visionary.
The same is true for the art that I'm pursuing. It cannot exist in a
cultural realm like art did up to this point where it's confined to
the museum.
Are drawing and sculpture headed the way of the
cave painting?
It already has in my mind. Though when you think of
virtual reality, you're really talking about a cave painting. You're
enacting a scene and you're in it and you believe it's real.
Will nanotechnology bring "The Jetsons" to
life?
It will be more about how we perceive the world.
The approach to medicine and healing will shift radically. The way
we build things will shift radically, but most of the way we
experience our material world will shift.
How far out could it get?
I really believe we're going to have smart
materials and smart clothes. You'll be able to move through
different parts of the planet without feeling that you have to own
property. We'll communicate without technology as we know it now.
The world now is full of technological crutches that help us
communicate. In the future, we won't need any of that.
Dr. Evil better not get his hands on this stuff. Is
nanoscience on Big Brother's radar screen?
Fear is about change. Things like Michael
Crichton's book "Prey" continue this image of these swarms attacking
people. I'm not sure this is a positive way to create dialogue.
Basically it's creating paranoia in the general public around
science. The images projected out there are far from what's
possible. Nanotech at this point is very much in the
imagination.
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Absolutely. Why not? They can dream anything they
want.
[Illustration] |
Caption: PHOTO: Humans "are the ultimate
nanomachines," says UCLA professor Victoria Vesna.;
PHOTOGRAPHER: William Aidasson |
|