How does a good scientist and a good artist recognize that a new and significant value has been created in their field?
Why is it that this cannot always be immediately recognized in science and art? There is still an objective algorithm in science controlling quality: do we still believe it is objective? Are there paradigm shifts in modern science? What are the characteristic features of pseudoscience? Can we still trust in the wisdom of time that will separate art and pseudo-art, science and pseudoscience, the real and the false? What does success and popularity prove? Do critics, aesthetes, and other gatekeepers still guard any entrances? An art historian, literary critic, fine artist, and a research biologist look for answers and ask each other questions.
Brigitta Muladi, art historian
Ferenc László, literary critic
Tayler Patrick, artist
Gábor Földvári, research biologist
Source: Garden on the cube