The human expressiveness may propose reflection of the existent, creating nothing, or may propose new ways of seeing and acting in the objective world, being, therefore, a creative process.
Science can't be expressive (or, at least, attractive)? I think it could.
I say this because an observer evaluated my work (which I consider a creative one) as a typical object of science fair, and said that I need to make it more humanized in order to make it more accessible to the public.
This raised a question about the appeal of artistic activities versus the appeal of science and technology fairs. The conclusion we drew (among my colleagues) is that technology and science fairs can be sometimes much more attractive than artistic activities, which currently tend to be anemic and distanced from the public.
The technology currently attracts public attention with such virulence that is hard to imagine a parallel in the art world. Just look at the Apple conference, which arouse rumors months before they happen, or the lines formed for the first day sales of a new Ipad.
1st day of sales of the Ipad
Thus, we can say that technology is so attractive (or more) than art in the current context, mainly due to product functionality and inovation.
A team committed to developing a cutting-edge technology product is formed by professionals of excellence, working together in a multi and transdisciplinary way, presenting new possibilities of existence, directly influencing culture, lifestyle and even human evolution.
I don't mean that my personal work purports to be a proponent of evolution for humans, but I'm saying that a creative product can escape the stereotypes of art and human expression, approaching the science fairs, and still be attractive to the public.
My work to which I referred;
Rhythm Machine (work in Progress) from Italo Travenzoli on Vimeo.
No comments:
Post a Comment