What I want to do today is spend some time talking about some stuff that's giving me a little bit of existential angst, for lack of a better word, over the past couple of years. And basically, these three quotes tell what's going on. "When God made the color purple, God was just showing off," Alice Walker wrote in "The Color Purple." And Zora Neale Hurston wrote in "Dust Tracks On A Road," "Research is a formalized curiosity. It's poking and prying with a purpose." And then finally, when I think about the near future, we have this attitude, "Well, whatever happens, happens." Right? So that goes along with the Cheshire Cat saying, "If you don't care much where you want to get to, it doesn't much matter which way you go."
Danas želim govoriti o nekim stvarima od kojih pomalo osjećam egzistencijalnu tjeskobu, kada ne mogu naći bolju riječ, tijekom poslijednjih nekoliko godina, i ova tri citata govore o čemu se radi. "Kad je Bog stvorio grimiznu boju, Bog se samo pravio važan." Alice Walker je to napisala u "Boji purpura", a Zora Neale Hurston je napisala u "Tragovima prašine na cesti": "Istraživanje je formalizirana znatiželja. To je opipavanje i zabadanje nosa sa svrhom." I na kraju, kad pomislim o skoroj budućnosti, znate, mi imamo stav, što će biti, bit će. Zar ne? To je u skladu s izrekom Češirske mačke, "Ako ti nije stalo kuda ćeš stići, nije ni važno kojim putem ideš."
But I think it does matter which way we go and what road we take, because when I think about design in the near future, what I think are the most important issues, what's really crucial and vital, is that we need to revitalize the arts and sciences right now, in 2002.
No, ja mislim da je važno kojim putem idemo, koju cestu biramo jer kad razmišljam o dizajnu u bliskoj budućnosti, što mislim da su važna pitanja, ono što je doista bitno je da moramo oživjeti umjetnosti i znanosti upravo sada u 2002.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
If we describe the near future as 10, 20, 15 years from now, that means that what we do today is going to be critically important, because in the year 2015, in the year 2020, 2025, the world our society is going to be building on, the basic knowledge and abstract ideas, the discoveries that we came up with today, just as all these wonderful things we're hearing about here at the TED conference that we take for granted in the world right now, were really knowledge and ideas that came up in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s. That's the substrate that we're exploiting today. Whether it's the internet, genetic engineering, laser scanners, guided missiles, fiber optics, high-definition television, remote sensing from space and the wonderful remote-sensing photos that we see in 3D weaving, TV programs like Tracker and Enterprise, CD-rewrite drives, flat-screen, Alvin Ailey's "Suite Otis," or Sarah Jones's "Your Revolution Will Not [Happen] Between These Thighs," which, by the way, was banned by the FCC, or ska -- all of these things, without question, almost without exception, are really based on ideas and abstract and creativity from years before. So we have to ask ourselves: What are we contributing to that legacy right now?
Ako opisujemo blisku budućnost kao 10, 20, 15 godina od sada, to znači da je ono što činimo danas kritično jer u godini 2015., i 2020., 2025., svijet u kojem će se graditi naše društvo, osnovna znanja i apstraktne ideje, otkrića do kojih dolazimo danas, poput ovih divnih stvari o kojima slušamo ovdje na TED konferenciji što uzimamo zdravo za gotovo sada, to su bila znanja i ideje koje su se javile u 50-tima, 60-tima i 70-tima. To je ono što mi koristimo danas, bilo da je to Internet, genetičko inženjerstvo, laser skeneri, rakete s navođenjem, optička vlakna, televizija visoke rezolucije, senzori, prikupljanje podataka iz svemira i divne fotografije koje gledamo u 3D prikazu, TV programima poput Trackera, i Enterprisea, CDi za "prženje", ravni ekrani, balet Suite Otis Alvin Ailey-a, ili pjesma Sarah Jones "Tvoja revolucija neće biti između ovih bedara", koja je, inače, zabranjena od strane FCC-a (Federalni odbor za komunikaciju), ili ska, sve te stvari, neupitno, gotovo bez iznimke, zapravo su osnovane na idejama apstrakciji i kreativnosti iz prijašnjih godina, tako da se moramo pitati, kako mi sada doprinosimo tom nasljeđu?
And when I think about it, I'm really worried. To be quite frank, I'm concerned. I'm skeptical that we're doing very much of anything. We're, in a sense, failing to act in the future. We're purposefully, consciously being laggards. We're lagging behind. Frantz Fanon, who was a psychiatrist from Martinique, said, "Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission and fulfill or betray it." What is our mission? What do we have to do?
I kad razmišljam o tome, zaista sam zabrinuta. Da budem iskrena, brine me. Skeptična sam da bilo što zapravo radimo. Na neki način, mi ne uspijevamo utjecati na budućnost. Mi smo namjerno, svjesno, obični mlitavci. Zaostajemo. Frantz Fanon, psihijatar s Martiniquea, rekao je: "Svaka generacija mora, iz relativne nebitnosti, otkriti svoju misiju, te je ispuniti ili je izdati." Što je naša misija? Što mi
I think our mission is to reconcile, to reintegrate science and the arts, because right now, there's a schism that exists in popular culture. People have this idea that science and the arts are really separate; we think of them as separate and different things. And this idea was probably introduced centuries ago, but it's really becoming critical now, because we're making decisions about our society every day that, if we keep thinking that the arts are separate from the sciences, and we keep thinking it's cute to say, "I don't understand anything about this one, I don't understand anything about the other one," then we're going to have problems.
moramo učiniti? Ja mislim kako je naša misija pomiriti, ponovno povezati znanost i umjetnosti, jer upravo sada postoji raskol u popularnoj kulturi. Znate, ljudi misle kako su znanost i umjetnosti dvije odvojene stvari. Razmišljamo o njima kao odvojenim i različitim stvarima, a ta ideja je vjerojatno uvedena prije nekoliko stoljeća, no sad postaje kritično, jer svakodnevno donosimo odluke o našem društvu, jer ako nastavimo razmišljati kako su umjetnosti odvojene od znanosti, i da je simpatično reći, "Ja uopće ne razumijem ovu stranu, ništa ne razumijem o ovoj drugoj strani", onda ćemo imati problema.
Now, I know no one here at TED thinks this. All of us, we already know that they're very connected. But I'm going to let you know that some folks in the outside world, believe it or not, think it's neat when they say, "Scientists and science is not creative. Maybe scientists are ingenious, but they're not creative." And then we have this tendency, the career counselors and various people say things like, "Artists are not analytical. They're ingenious, perhaps, but not analytical." And when these concepts underlie our teaching and what we think about the world, then we have a problem, because we stymie support for everything. By accepting this dichotomy, whether it's tongue-in-cheek, when we attempt to accommodate it in our world, and we try to build our foundation for the world, we're messing up the future, because: Who wants to be uncreative? Who wants to be illogical? Talent would run from either of these fields if you said you had to choose either. Then they'll go to something where they think, "Well, I can be creative and logical at the same time."
Znam da nitko ovdje na TED-u tako ne razmišlja. Svi mi već znamo da su one povezane, no reći ću vam kako neki ljudi u vanjskom svijetu, vjerovali ili ne, oni misle da je zgodno kad kažu "Znate, znanstvenici i znanost nisu kreativni. Možda su znanstvenici genijalni, ali nisu kreativni. I onda imamo tendenciju, da savjetnici za karijeru i razni ljudi kažu stvari poput "Umjetnici nisu analitičari. Možda su genijalni, ali nemaju analitičke vještine." I kad te ideje stoje u pozadini našeg školstva, i načina na koji razmišljamo o svijetu, onda imamo problem, jer onda sve unazađujemo. Ako prihvatimo tu dvojnost, iskreno ili ne, mi je pokušavamo smjestiti u naš svijet, i nastojimo izgraditi temelje za svijet, mi upropaštavamo budućnost, jer, tko želi biti nekreativan? Tko želi biti nelogičan? Postoje talenti koji će pobjeći iz bilo kojeg od ova dva područja ako su prisiljeni izabrati samo jedno. Privući će ih nešto gdje mogu reći, "Mogu biti i kreativan
Now, I grew up in the '60s and I'll admit it --
i logičan u isto vrijeme."
actually, my childhood spanned the '60s, and I was a wannabe hippie, and I always resented the fact that I wasn't old enough to be a hippie. And I know there are people here, the younger generation, who want to be hippies. People talk about the '60s all the time. And they talk about the anarchy that was there. But when I think about the '60s, what I took away from it was that there was hope for the future. We thought everyone could participate. There were wonderful, incredible ideas that were always percolating, and so much of what's cool or hot today is really based on some of those concepts, whether it's people trying to use the Prime Directive from Star Trek, being involved in things, or, again, that three-dimensional weaving and fax machines that I read about in my weekly readers that the technology and engineering was just getting started.
Ja sam odrasla u 60-tima i priznajem, zapravo, moje djetinjstvo je bilo u 60-tima, htjela sam biti hipi i uvijek sam bila nesretna što nisam zapravo bila dovoljno stara da budem hipi. I znam da ovdje ima ljudi, mlađe generacije koji žele biti hipiji, ali ljudi pričaju o 60-tima i o anarhiji koja je vladala, ali kad ja razmišljam o 60-ima, ono čega se sjećam je nada u budućnost. Mislili smo kako svi mogu sudjelovati u tome. Bilo je divnih, nevjerojatnih ideja koje su kružile, i toliko toga što je danas cool ili zanimljivo, zapravo se zasniva na tim konceptima, bilo da se radi o ljudima koji primaju naredbe na Star Treku ili opet to trodimenzionalno tkanje i faksovi o kojima sam čitala kako vrijeme tehnologije i inženjerstva tek počinje.
But the '60s left me with a problem. You see, I always assumed I would go into space, because I followed all of this. But I also loved the arts and sciences. You see, when I was growing up as a little girl and as a teenager, I loved designing and making doll clothes and wanting to be a fashion designer. I took art and ceramics. I loved dance: Lola Falana, Alvin Ailey, Jerome Robbins. And I also avidly followed the Gemini and the Apollo programs. I had science projects and tons of astronomy books. I took calculus and philosophy. I wondered about infinity and the Big Bang theory. And when I was at Stanford, I found myself, my senior year, chemical engineering major, half the folks thought I was a political science and performing arts major, which was sort of true, because I was Black Student Union President, and I did major in some other things. And I found myself the last quarter juggling chemical engineering separation processes, logic classes, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and also producing and choreographing a dance production. And I had to do the lighting and the design work, and I was trying to figure out: Do I go to New York City to try to become a professional dancer, or to go to medical school? Now, my mother helped me figure that one out.
No 60-te su mi ostavile problem. Uvijek sam mislila kako ću putovati u svemir, ali voljela sam i umjetnost i znanost. Kada sam odrastala kao djevojčica i adolesentica, voljela sam dizajnirati i izrađivati odijeću za pse, i htjela sam biti modni dizajner. Proučavala sam likovnu umjetnost i keramiku. Voljela sam ples. Lola Falana. Alvin Ailey. Jerome Robbins. I vjerno sam pratila programe Gemini i Apollo. Izrađivala sam znanstvene projekte i imala puno knjiga iz astronomije. Učila sam diferencijalni račun i filozofiju. Pitala sam se o beskonačnosti i teoriji velikog praska. I kad sam otišla na Stanford, na mojoj zadnjoj godini, na smjeru kemijskog inženjerstva, pola ljudi mislilo je kako studiram političke znanosti i ples, što je bilo dijelom istina jer sam bila predsjednik Unije crnih studenata i studirala sam neke druge stvari, i u zadnjem semestru žonglirala sam procese separacije u kemijskom inženjerstvu, predavanja iz logike, nuklearnu magnetsku rezonanciju, i također sam producirala i koreografirala plesnu predstavu, i radila na osvjetljenju pozornice i dizajn, i pokušavala sam odlučiti da li da odem u New York i pokušam postati profesionalna plesačica, ili da studiram medicinu? E sada, moja majka mi je pomogla
(Laughter)
da odlučim. (Smijeh)
But when I went into space, I carried a number of things up with me. I carried a poster by Alvin Ailey -- you can figure out now, I love the dance company -- an Alvin Ailey poster of Judith Jamison performing the dance "Cry," dedicated to all black women everywhere; a Bundu statue, which was from the women's society in Sierra Leone; and a certificate for the Chicago Public School students to work to improve their science and math. And folks asked me, "Why did you take up what you took up?" And I had to say, "Because it represents human creativity; the creativity that allowed us, that we were required to have to conceive and build and launch the space shuttle, which springs from the same source as the imagination and analysis that it took to carve a Bundu statue, or the ingenuity it took to design, choreograph and stage "Cry." Each one of them are different manifestations, incarnations, of creativity -- avatars of human creativity.
No kada sam otišla u svemir, nosila sam nekoliko stvari sa mnom. Nosila sam poster Alvin Aileya, već vam je sigurno jasno do sada da volim tu plesnu trupu. Alvin Ailey poster od Judith Jamison kako izvodi balet "Cry", posvećen svim ženama crne boje kože. Kip Bundu, od Ženskog društva u Sierra Leone, i potvrdu za učenike javnih škola u Chicagu da rade na poboljšanju znanja znanosti i matematike, i ljudi su me pitali, "Zašto si baš to uzela sa sobom?" I morala sam reći, "Zato što to predstavlja ljudsku kreativnost, kreativnost koja nam je omogućila da zamislimo i izgradimo svemirski brod, koja dolazi iz istog izvora mašte i analize koja je bila potrebna da se izrezbari Bundu kip, ili genijanost da se osmisli, koreografira i postavi na pozornicu balet "Cry". Svaki od njih je različita manifestacija, inkarnacija kreativnosti, utjelovljenja ljudske kreativnosti,
And that's what we have to reconcile in our minds, how these things fit together. The difference between arts and sciences is not analytical versus intuitive. Right? E = mc2 required an intuitive leap, and then you had to do the analysis afterwards. Einstein said, in fact, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." Dance requires us to express and want to express the jubilation in life, but then you have to figure out: Exactly what movement do I do to make sure it comes across correctly? The difference between arts and sciences is also not constructive versus deconstructive. A lot of people think of the sciences as deconstructive, you have to pull things apart. And yeah, subatomic physics is deconstructive -- you literally try to tear atoms apart to understand what's inside of them. But sculpture, from what I understand from great sculptors, is deconstructive, because you see a piece and you remove what doesn't need to be there. Biotechnology is constructive. Orchestral arranging is constructive.
i to moramo pomiriti u svojim glavama kako te stvari idu zajedno. Razlika između umjetnosti i znanosti nije razlika između analitičkog i intuitivnog, zar ne? Za 'E=mc 2' bila je prvo potrebna intuicija, a analiza se napravila nakon toga. Einstein je, zapravo, rekao: "Najljepše što možemo doživjeti je nešto što je misteriozno. To je izvor sve prave umjetnosti i znanosti." U plesu je potrebno izraziti i željeti izraziti radost življenja, no prije toga morate smisliti kojim točno pokretom to želim pokazati da se ispravno shvati? Razlika između umjetnosti i znanosti također nije konstruktivno nasuprot dekonstruktivnog, zar ne? Mnogo ljudi misli kako su dekonstruktivne. Rastavljanje na sastavne dijelove. Da, subatomska fizika je doista dekonstruktivna. Atomi se doslovce rastavljaju kako bi se razumjelo od čega su sastavljeni. Ali skulptura, koliko sam razumjela od velikih kipara, također je dekonstruktivna, jer vidite konačni rezultat i uklanjate ono što ne treba tamo biti. Biotehnologija je konstruktivna. Orkestralni aranžman je konstruktivan.
So, in fact, we use constructive and deconstructive techniques in everything. The difference between science and the arts is not that they are different sides of the same coin, even, or even different parts of the same continuum, but rather, they're manifestations of the same thing. Different quantum states of an atom? Or maybe if I want to be more 21st century, I could say that they're different harmonic resonances of a superstring. But we'll leave that alone. They spring from the same source. The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity. It's our attempt as humans to build an understanding of the universe, the world around us. It's our attempt to influence things, the universe internal to ourselves and external to us.
Mi zapravo koristimo konstruktivne i dekonstruktivne tehnike svuda. Razlika između znanosti i umjetnosti nije da su one različite strane jednog novčića, ili različiti dijelovi istog kontinuuma, već su manifestacije jedne te iste stvari. Različita kvantna stanja atoma? Ili ako želim biti bliža 21. stoljeću mogla bih reći kako su to različite harmonijske rezonance superstrune. Ali ostavimo to sada. (Smijeh) One dolaze iz istog izvora. Umjetnosti i znanosti su utjelovljenja ljudske kreativnosti. To je naš pokušaj da kao ljudi pokušamo razumjeti Svemir, svijet oko nas. To je naš pokušaj da izvršimo utjecaj, na Svemir unutar nas i izvan nas.
The sciences, to me, are manifestations of our attempt to express or share our understanding, our experience, to influence the universe external to ourselves. It doesn't rely on us as individuals. It's the universe, as experienced by everyone. The arts manifest our desire, our attempt to share or influence others through experiences that are peculiar to us as individuals. Let me say it again another way: science provides an understanding of a universal experience, and arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience. That's what we have to think about, that they're all part of us, they're all part of a continuum. It's not just the tools, it's not just the sciences, the mathematics and the numerical stuff and the statistics, because we heard, very much on this stage, people talked about music being mathematical. Arts don't just use clay, aren't the only ones that use clay, light and sound and movement. They use analysis as well.
Znanosti, za mene, manifestacije su našeg pokušaja da izrazimo ili podijelimo svoje razumijevanje, svoje iskustvo, da utječemo na Svemir izvan nas. On ne ovisi o nama kao pojedincima. To je Svemir s kojim svi imaju isto iskustvo, dok umjetnosti manifestiraju našu želju, naš pokušaj da podijelimo ili utječemo na druge preko iskustava koja su jedinstvena za nas kao pojedince. Dozvolite da to ponovim na drugi način: znanost pruža razumijevanje univerzalnog iskustva, a umjetnost pruža univerzalno razumijevanje osobnog iskustva. Tako moramo razmišljati, da je to sve dio nas, dio kontinuuma. Nisu to samo alati, ne samo znanosti, znate, matematika i numerički podaci i statistika, jer smo čuli, i na ovoj pozornici, ljude koji govore kako glazba ima matematičku komponentu. Zar ne? Umjetnosti ne upotrebljavaju samo glinu, svjetlo i zvuk i pokret. One upotrebljavaju i analizu.
So people might say, "Well, I still like that intuitive versus analytical thing," because everybody wants to do the right brain, left brain thing. We've all been accused of being right-brained or left-brained at some point in time, depending on who we disagreed with.
No ljudi bi mogli reći, hej, meni se ipak sviđa podjela intuitivnog nasuprot analitičkom, jer svi žele razmišljati na način desni mozak - lijevi mozak. Zar ne? Sve nas je netko u nekom trenu optužio da nama dominira desni ili lijevi mozak, ovisno o tome
(Laughter)
tko je osoba s kojom se nismo mogli složiti. (Smijeh)
You know, people say "intuitive" -- that's like you're in touch with nature, in touch with yourself and relationships; analytical, you put your mind to work. I'm going to tell you a little secret. You all know this, though. But sometimes people use this analysis idea, that things are outside of ourselves, to say, this is what we're going to elevate as the true, most important sciences, right? Then you have artists -- and you all know this is true as well -- artists will say things about scientists because they say they're too concrete, they're disconnected from the world. But, we've even had that here on stage, so don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
Kad ljudi kažu intuitivno, to bi trebalo značiti kako ste u dodiru s prirodom, sa samima sobom i odnosima s ljudima. Analitičko: upotrebljavate svoj um, i reći ću vam malu tajnu. Svi vi to zapravo znate, ali ponekad ljudi upotrebljavaju ideju analize, stvari koje su izvan nas samih, kao nešto što ćemo uzdignuti kao istinito, kao najvažnije, znanost, zar ne? A s druge strane imate umjetnike, i svi vi znate da je i to istina, oni će govoriti na određen način o znanstvenicima, da su prekonkretni, odvojeni od svijeta. Imali smo i to ovdje na pozornici, nemojte se praviti
(Laughter)
da ne znate o čemu pričam. (Smijeh)
We had folks talking about the Flat Earth Society and flower arrangers, so there's this whole dichotomy that we continue to carry along, even when we know better. And folks say we need to choose either-or. But it would really be foolish to choose either one, intuitive versus analytical. That's a foolish choice. It's foolish just like trying to choose between being realistic or idealistic. You need both in life. Why do people do this? I'm going to quote a molecular biologist, Sydney Brenner, who's 70 years old, so he can say this. He said, "It's always important to distinguish between chastity and impotence." Now --
Bilo je ljudi koji su govorili o tome kako je Zemlja ravna i aranžere cvijeća, tako da je tu cijela ta dvojnost koju nosimo sa sobom, iako znamo da ne bi trebali. I ljudi govore da moramo izabrati jedno ili drugo. Ali bilo bi glupo izabrati bilo koje, zar ne? Intuitivno nasuprot analitičkom? To je glup izbor. Glup je, isto kao da birate između realističnog ili idealističnog. U životu nam je potrebno oboje. Zašto to ljudi rade? Citirat ću molekularnog biologa, Sydney Brennera, koji ima 70 godina i smije to reći. Kaže: "Bitno je vidjeti razliku između čestitosti i impotencije." E sad... (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
Htjela bih s vama podijeliti
I want to share with you a little equation, OK? How does understanding science and the arts fit into our lives and what's going on and the things we're talking about here at the design conference? And this is a little thing I came up with: understanding and our resources and our will cause us to have outcomes. Our understanding is our science, our arts, our religion; how we see the universe around us; our resources, our money, our labor, our minerals -- those things that are out there in the world we have to work with. But more importantly, there's our will.
jednu jednadžbu, ok? Kako se razumijevanje znanosti i umjetnosti i što se to događa sa stvarima o kojima pričamo ovdje na konferenciji o dizajnu, i ovo je do čega sam došla, razumijevanje i naši resursi i naša volja uzrokuju određene ishode. Naše razumijevanje je naša znanost, naše umjetnosti, naša religija, kako vidimo Svemir oko nas, naši resursi, naš novac, naš rad, naši minerali, stvari tamo u svijetu s kojim moramo raditi.
This is our vision, our aspirations of the future, our hopes, our dreams, our struggles and our fears. Our successes and our failures influence what we do with all of those. And to me, design and engineering, craftsmanship and skilled labor, are all the things that work on this to have our outcome, which is our human quality of life. Where do we want the world to be? And guess what? Regardless of how we look at this, whether we look at arts and sciences as separate or different, they're both being influenced now and they're both having problems.
Ali još važnije, tu je naša volja. Naša vizija, naše ambicije za budućnost, naše nade, naši snovi, naše bitke i naši strahovi. Naši uspjesi i neuspjesi utječu na to što ćemo sa svime time, i za mene, dizajn i inženjerstvo, obrti i profesionalni rad, sve su to stvari koje utječu na ishod, a to je naša ljudska kvaliteta života. Gdje želimo vidjeti svijet? I pogodite što? Bez obzira kako na to gledamo, bilo da vidimo umjetnosti i znanosti kao odvojene ili različite, obje strane
I did a project called S.E.E.ing the Future: Science, Engineering and Education. It was looking at how to shed light on the most effective use of government funding. We got a bunch of scientists in all stages of their careers. They came to Dartmouth College, where I was teaching. And they talked about, with theologians and financiers: What are some of the issues of public funding for science and engineering research? What's most important about it? There are some ideas that emerged that I think have really powerful parallels to the arts.
sada imaju problem. Radila sam na projektu 'S.E.E.ing the Future' ('Vidjeti budućnost') Znanost, inženjerstvo i edukacija, i radilo se na tome da vidimo koji bi bio najuspješniji način da se potroši državni novac. Doveli smo dosta znanstvenika u svim stadijima karijere. Došli su na Dartmouth koledž, gdje sam predavala, i razgovarali su s teolozima i financijerima, koja su glavna pitanja u javnom financiranju za znanost i inženjerstvo. Što je najvažnije? Neke ideje koje su se pojavile pokazuju važne paralele
The first thing they said was that the circumstances that we find ourselves in today in the sciences and engineering that made us world leaders are very different than the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s and the '70s, when we emerged as world leaders, because we're no longer in competition with fascism, with Soviet-style communism. And by the way, that competition wasn't just military; it included social competition and political competition as well, that allowed us to look at space as one of those platforms to prove that our social system was better.
s umjetnostima. Prva stvar koju su rekli je da su okolnosti u kojima smo sad u znanosti i inženjerstvu koje su od nas napravile svjetsku silu različite su od onih u 40-ima, 50-ima, 60-ima i 70-ima kad smo postali svjetska sila, jer se sad više ne natječemo s fašizmom, s komunizmom sovjetskog stila, a to natjecanje nije bilo samo vojno, ono je bilo i društveno i političko, ono nam je omogućilo da gledamo u Svemir kao jedan od načina da dokažemo kako je naš društveni sustav bolji.
Another thing they talked about was that the infrastructure that supports the sciences is becoming obsolete. We look at universities and colleges -- small, mid-sized community colleges across the country -- their laboratories are becoming obsolete. And this is where we train most of our science workers and our researchers -- and our teachers, by the way. And there's a media that doesn't support the dissemination of any more than the most mundane and inane of information. There's pseudoscience, crop circles, alien autopsy, haunted houses, or disasters. And that's what we see. This isn't really the information you need to operate in everyday life and figure out how to participate in this democracy and determine what's going on.
Druga stvar o kojoj su govorili je da infrastruktura koja podupire znanost postaje zastarjela. Ako pogledamo sveučilišta i koledže, javne koledže male i srednje veličine u cijeloj zemlji, njihovi laboratoriji postaju zastarjeli, a tamo mi obrazujemo većinu znanstvenih radnika i istraživača, i učitelja, i da mediji ne podupiru širenje ništa više nego običnih i praznih informacija. Tu je pseudoznanost, autopsija vanzemaljaca, kuće duhova, ili katastrofe. To je sve što vidimo. A to nisu informacije koje nam trebaju za svakodnevni život i da bismo shvatili kako sudjelovati u ovoj demokraciji i što se događa.
They also said there's a change in the corporate mentality. Whereas government money had always been there for basic science and engineering research, we also counted on some companies to do some basic research. But what's happened now is companies put more energy into short-term product development than they do in basic engineering and science research. And education is not keeping up. In K through 12, people are taking out wet labs. They think if we put a computer in the room, it's going to take the place of actually mixing the acids or growing the potatoes. And government funding is decreasing in spending, and then they're saying, let's have corporations take over, and that's not true. Government funding should at least do things like recognize cost benefits of basic science and engineering research. We have to know that we have a responsibility as global citizens in this world. We have to look at the education of humans. We need to build our resources today to make sure that they're trained so they understand the importance of these things. And we have to support the vitality of science. That doesn't mean that everything has to have one thing that's going to go on, or that we know exactly what's going to be the outcome of it, but that we support the vitality and the intellectual curiosity that goes along [with it].
Također su rekli kako je došlo do promjene u mentalitetu korporacija. Dok je državni novac uvijek bio tu za bazična istraživanja i istraživanja u inženjerstvu, računalo se i na poduzeća da rade nešto bazičnog istraživanja, no sada se dogodilo da poduzeća ulažu više u kratkoročni razvoj proizvoda nego u bazična istraživanja u znanosti i inženjerstvu. A školstvo ne drži korak. U osnovnim i srednjim školama, laboratoriji se manje koriste. Ljudi misle da ako stavimo računalo u sobu da će ono zamijeniti miješanje kiselina, uzgajanje krumpira. A državna ulaganja se smanjuju i govore, neka poduzeća preuzmu, a to nije dobro. Državne agencije bi u najmanju ruku trebale prepoznati financijske dobrobiti istraživanja u znanosti i inženjerstvu. Moramo shvatiti kako imamo odgovornosti kao globalni građani ovog svijeta. Moramo pogledati edukaciju ljudi. Moramo izgraditi naše resurse danas i osigurati da ljudi razumiju njihovu važnost, moramo dati podršku važnosti znanosti, i to ne znači da treba izabrati samo jednu stvar koja će se financirati, jer onda znamo koji će biti ishod, nego da podržavamo vitalnost i intelektualnu znatiželju,
And if you think about those parallels to the arts -- the competition with the Bolshoi Ballet spurred the Joffrey and the New York City Ballet to become better. Infrastructure, museums, theaters, movie houses across the country are disappearing. We have more television stations with less to watch, we have more money spent on rewrites to get old television programs in the movies. We have corporate funding now that, when it goes to support the arts, it almost requires that the product be part of the picture that the artist draws. We have stadiums that are named over and over again by corporations. In Houston, we're trying to figure out what to do with that Enron Stadium thing.
i ako razmislimo o tim paralelama u umjetnosti, natjecanje s Bolshoi baletom potaknulo je Joffrey i New York City balet da postanu bolji. Muzeji, kazališta, kina po cijeloj zemlji nestaju. Imamo sve više televizijskih stanica ali sve manje za gledati, sve više novca se troši na preinake kako bi se stari televizijski programi prenijeli u kina. Imamo korporativno financiranje koje, kad ga dobije neka skupina, kad se donira za potporu umjetnosti, gotovo uvijek se zahtijeva da njihov proizvod bude dio slike koju umjetnik slika, i imamo stadione kojima se iznova daju imena različitih korporacija. U Houstonu pokušavamo odlučiti
(Laughter)
što ćemo s Enron stadionom.
Fine arts and education in the schools is disappearing, And we have a government that seems like it's gutting the NEA and other programs. So we have to really stop and think: What are we trying to do with the sciences and the arts? There's a need to revitalize them. We have to pay attention to it. I just want to tell you quickly what I'm doing --
(Smijeh) A umjetnost i edukacija u školama nestaju, a vlada ne podupire programe za unapređenje javnog školstva, te zaista moramo zastati i razmisliti, što to želimo učiniti sa znanostima i umjetnostima? Moramo ih oživjeti. Moramo obratiti pažnju na njih. Reći ću vam na brzinu što ja radim.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
I want to tell you what I've been doing a little bit since ... I feel this need to sort of integrate some of the ideas that I've had and run across over time.
Reći ću vam što sam radila pomalo, otkad osjećam tu potrebu da povežem neke od ideja s kojima sam se susrela tijekom vremena.
One of the things that I found out is that there's a need to repair the dichotomy between the mind and body as well. My mother always told me, you have to be observant, know what's going on in your mind and your body. And as a dancer, I had this tremendous faith in my ability to know my body, just as I knew how to sense colors. Then I went to medical school,
Jedna od stvari koje sam shvatila je kako postoji potreba da se ispravi dvojnost između uma i tijela. Majka mi je uvijek govorila, moraš obratiti pažnju, znati što se događa i u tvom umu i tijelu, i kao plesačica imala sam veliku vjeru u svoju sposobnost da razumijem svoje tijelo isto kao što sam znala osjećati boje.
and I was supposed to just go on what the machine said about bodies. You know, you would ask patients questions and some people would tell you, "Don't listen to what the patient said." We know that patients know and understand their bodies better, but these days we're trying to divorce them from that idea. We have to reconcile the patient's knowledge of their body with physicians' measurements.
Onda sam otišla studirati medicinu, i trebala sam prihvatiti ono što medicina kaže o tijelu. Znate, postavili bi pitanja pacijentu i neki ljudi bi vam rekli, "Ne, ne, ne slušaj što ti pacijent govori." Mi znamo kako pacijenti razumiju svoja tijela bolje, ali u zadnje vrijeme ih pokušavamo razuvjeriti od te ideje. No moramo uskladiti znanje pacijenta o svom tijelu i liječnička mjerenja.
We had someone talk about measuring emotions and getting machines to figure out what to keep us from acting crazy. No, we shouldn't measure. We shouldn't use machines to measure road rage and then do something to keep us from engaging in it. Maybe we can have machines help us to recognize that we have road rage, and then we need to know how to control that without the machines. We even need to be able to recognize that without the machines. What I'm very concerned about is:
Netko je govorio o mjerenju emocija i izradi uređaja koji bi to radili, da ne bismo djelovali ludi. Zar ne? Ne, mi ne trebamo mjeriti, ne trebamo upotrebaljvati strojeve koji mjere emocije bijesa i onda rade nešto što će nas spriječiti u njihovoj manifestaciji. Možda bi nam uređaji mogli pomoći da prepoznamo te negativne emocije i onda ih moramo znati kontrolirati bez uređaja. Mi to čak moramo biti u stanju prepoznati bez uređaja.
How do we bolster our self-awareness as humans, as biological organisms? Michael Moschen spoke of having to teach and learn how to feel with my eyes, to see with my hands. We have all kinds of possibilities to use our senses by, and that's what we have to do. That's what I want to do -- to try to use bioinstrumentation, those kind of things, to help our senses in what we do.
Jako me brine kako potaknuti samosvijesnost nas kao ljudi, kao bioloških organizama? Michael Moschen je govorio kako poučavati i naučiti osjećati s očima, vidjeti s rukama. Imamo razne mogućnosti upotrebe naših osjetila i to moramo iskoristiti. To ja želim učiniti, pokušati koristiti bioinstrumentaciju, stvari koje pomažu našim osjetilima u tome što radimo,
That's the work I've been doing now, as a company called BioSentient Corporation. I figured I'd have to do that ad, because I'm an entrepreneur, and "entrepreneur" says "somebody who does what they want to do, because they're not broke enough that they have to get a real job."
i time se sada bavim u organizaciji BioSentient Corporation. Mislim da moram to promovirati, jer ja sam poduzetnik, a poduzetnik je netko tko radi što želi raditi jer nije dovoljno siromašan da mora naći pravi posao.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh) Posao koji radim
But that's the work I'm doing, BioSentient Corporation, trying to figure out: How do we integrate these things? Let me finish by saying that my personal design issue for the future is really about integrating; to think about that intuitive and that analytical. The arts and sciences are not separate.
s BioSentient korporacijom je pokušati razumjeti kako mi integriramo sve te stvari? Dozvolite da završim time da je moj osobni problem dizajna budućnosti vezan uz integraciju, uz razmišljanje o tom intuitivnom i analitičkom. Umjetnosti i znanosti nisu odvojene.
High school physics lesson before you leave: high school physics teacher used to hold up a ball. She would say, "This ball has potential energy. But nothing will happen to it, it can't do any work, until I drop it and it changes states." I like to think of ideas as potential energy. They're really wonderful, but nothing will happen until we risk putting them into action.
Lekcija iz fizike prije nego odete. Srednjoškolska profesorica fizike je znala držati loptu. Rekla bi kako ova lopta ima potencijalnu energiju, ali ništa joj se neće dogoditi, ne može obaviti nikakav rad sve dok je ne ispustim i ona ne promijeni stanje. Ja razmišljam o idejama kao potencijalnoj energiji. One su divne, ali ništa se neće dogoditi dok ne preuzmemo
This conference is filled with wonderful ideas. We're going to share lots of things with people. But nothing's going to happen until we risk putting those ideas into action. We need to revitalize the arts and sciences today. We need to take responsibility for the future. We can't hide behind saying it's just for company profits, or it's just a business, or I'm an artist or an academician.
rizik da ih ostvarimo. Na ovoj konferenciji bilo je puno divnih ideja. Dijelimo mnogo stvari s drugim ljudima, ali ništa se neće dogoditi dok ne krenemo u akciju. Moramo oživjeti umjetnosti i znanosti današnjice, moramo preuzeti odgovornost za budućnost. Ne možemo se skrivati iza profita poduzeća, ili floskula kako je to samo biznis, ili ja sam umjetnik ili znanstvenik.
Here's how you judge what you're doing: I talked about that balance between intuitive, analytical. Fran Lebowitz, my favorite cynic, said, "The three questions of greatest concern ..." -- now I'm going to add on to design -- "... are: Is it attractive?" That's the intuitive. "Is it amusing?" -- the analytical, and, "Does it know its place?" -- the balance.
Evo kako procijeniti ono što radite. Govorila sam u ravnoteži između intuitivnog, analitičkog. Fran Lebowitz, moja najdraža ciničarka, rekla je kako su tri najvažnija pitanja sad ću ja dodati "za dizajn", jesu: "Je li privlačno?" To je intuitivno. "Je li zabavno?" Analitičko. "I zna li se gdje mu je mjesto?"
Thank you very much.
Ravnoteža. Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)