I'm at MIT and there are definitely people in other groups on campus that like to shit on the Media Lab for this reason. I think this actually raises an interesting question. If you want to position yourself at the intersection of science and art, what's the correct balance of practicality, rigor, and imagination?
The stereotypical person from the "hard science" communities will never totally buy into this kind of work being science. It's not exact, it's not rigorous. On the other hand, artists and designers more often inhabit this speculative, rapidly-prototyped, thought experiment-esque mode of creation and take it as a valid form of inquiry.
Personally, I love it. It's not hard science or hard engineering in the same way that someone in EECS or biology might treat those fields, but it's a wonderful way to root artistic exploration in current scientific technique.
Is that the right balance between the two? Is there a point along the spectrum where you need to stop calling yourself a scientist and start calling yourself an artist? I think that's an open question.
The stereotypical person from the "hard science" communities will never totally buy into this kind of work being science. It's not exact, it's not rigorous. On the other hand, artists and designers more often inhabit this speculative, rapidly-prototyped, thought experiment-esque mode of creation and take it as a valid form of inquiry.
Personally, I love it. It's not hard science or hard engineering in the same way that someone in EECS or biology might treat those fields, but it's a wonderful way to root artistic exploration in current scientific technique.
Is that the right balance between the two? Is there a point along the spectrum where you need to stop calling yourself a scientist and start calling yourself an artist? I think that's an open question.