Reply to comment

Last week's discussion about the mimetic strategies of both science and art made me think about the role representation, in general, plays in our society. I'm not convinced it would be possible to analyze the merits and limitations of either art or science without some recourse to an agreed upon "real." I think the more interesting question is how that "real" is formed, how we come to agree on what something is representing, and how meaning of that thing, and/or its representation is made collectively. 

When we went around the room and discussed our reactions to the Pollock painting, in some ways we treated the work like a Rorcharch onto which each of us projected our own imaginations. Despite the fact that it was interesting to see such a diversity of responses, I found that when Dr Grobstein drew on the chalk board and we all agreed he drew a chair a more provocative exercise. One only has to spend some time on the IKEA website to know that chairs take many forms, yet we all recognize some fundamental elements in the one Dr Grobstein drew. How is this kind of collective agreement facilitated, and would it be possible to practice or analyze and and science without it?