Professor Vesna has taken an entirely new angle on the concept of culture. It is one that I never payed much attention too before. Now, however after only one week in the class, I have realized the validity of her approach to the concept of the division and distance between the arts and sciences. Now I definitely have come to realize that the division between the two is very real. I have found that the points professor Vesna has raised make perfect sense to me, it is only that I have never payed attention to the topic specifically before.
I found the piece my C.P. Snow exceptionally to the central theme of the class and found it to be very explanatory. After reading it I felt that truly understand the emphasis of the class and found it be a good tool for demonstrating the direction in which I should direct my effort in the class.
I also found the Snow piece especially interesting because it as written from the perspective on a British scholar. It was very interesting to hear the argument he made about the two cultures in general, and then to look at the comments he made about the situation in Britain specifically. I personally thought that many of the statements he made about his own country were highly relevant to our situation, in the U.S. in general, but also on our campus specifically. This division is so evident on the UCLA campus and pervades so many aspects of our lives as students here. It is present, even in the very design of the campus, with the division of "North Campus" and "South Campus."
This class has specifically made me realize the degree to which this division has become a rivalry. I had never really looked at it this way previously. But now I am beginning to see the rivalry in many ever day situations. I have noticed the difference the most in my GE courses where you get people of both realms coming together. I have notice in conversations with people from both ends of the campus that people from each culture definitely seem to exhibit a sense of pride about their side of the school. It is rare to find a person from the sciences that is highly enthusiastic about the arts, and vice versa. I found this observation very interesting because I am definitely the type of person that is torn between the two, and pretty much equally enthusiastic about both.
I also found the Steve Kurtz lecture extremely interesting and informative. Going into that lecture I had no idea what to expect. I could not imagine what kind of art he could have been producing that would entail the use of biotechnology. After hearing him speak and present his pieces I completely new and more thorough understanding of the type of art we are going to be looking at in this course, some I knew almost nothing about before this. It was fascinating to see political relevancy of his pieces and way he they forced the inclusion of science in his work and his cooperation with scientists. It was also interesting to see the way it is viewed as so unusual for an artist to be in possision of biotechnology, even to the point of the paranoia of the authorities involved in the Steve Kurtz case. His story was very eye-opening for me.
The article I am attaching is very interesting in the way it is able to capture the Steve Kurtz innocent actions were so badly misinterpreted. I particularly like the way it mentions this case as a story of the times in which we live because it makes one realize that this really is a product of times in which we are living right now. At no other historical period would we be so paranoid about a situation like this.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8278-2004Jun1.html
