X Minus One - Real Gone (#90) 

I'm sure that is all true, but I don't think that was the point. I thought the program was undercut somewhat by its flip attitude, but I thought it actually discussed quite well and quite seriously the distinctions and similarities between art and science. Obviously tied in was the alleged corrupting influence of money/commerce.

@@adamtondowsky6953 : I don't recall any significant points about art versus science (or versus engineering). In this story the "art" was fraudulent, in the sense that customers believed the miniatures required amazing artistic craftsmanship to produce. What serious points about art versus science did you glean from it?

@@brothermine2292 I think that was part of it. It wasn't a scientific discussion, but that was one of the things: the science behind art and the creative innovation in science. There were discussions between Ralph Therian and Collins and between Therian and the scientist. The marketing of the art minatures were a fraud, but the miniatures themselves weren't a fraud. Just because the marketing was fraudulent, were the miniatures any less impressive? The actual science ( in the program) was really even more impressive than the marketing claims. Of course, a person can argue 'that science can't really happen.' Fine, from a strict scientific perspective, since that science can't really occur, it takes away from any realism, and I for some might diminish the serious points in the episodes, but I think these are genuine discussions regarding where science ends and art begins.

@@adamtondowsky6953 : 1. To answer your question about whether the miniatures are less impressive when their means of manufacture is known: much less impressive from an artistic standpoint since any untalented hack could produce them (like someone who uses a 3D printer and a downloaded template), but the scientific breakthrough to miniaturize matter is impressive and worthy of a Nobel prize. The characters in the story agree they're not artistically as impressive, else they'd have no reason to perpetrate the fraud. 2. Are you sure the "art versus science" discussion is in the story rather than in your reaction to the story? 3. I don't know much about art -- and perhaps the author didn't either -- but I would call the miniatures "craft" rather than "art" even if I believed the fraud, and I doubt whether true art afficionados would pay a fortune for craft items. Collectors of rare items might. 4. The genius inventor was also an idiot. His patent rights would be worth much more than his share of the income from art sales. It's been a month since I listened to the story, and if the author addressed this issue -- why not patent the miniaturizer and make a fortune licensing the patent rights? -- I've forgotten it.

@@brothermine2292 On point two, yes starting at about the 15 minute mark. It's mostly in the form of the Therian and the inventor insulting each other, but they do get the discussion points out. 3.The author of this was Al 'Jazzbo' Collins who was a famous disk jockey and musician (he plays a much poorer version of himself.) The same year as he wrote and starred in this (1957), he hosted the Tonight Show for five weeks. I don't know if he knew much about art, but I think he had a sense of public sentiment, especially of the beat generation. 4.I agree, I thought that was silly as well, but it served the story. Around 15 minute mark, Inventor "I make the catalyst." Therian: "Without me, you'd just have a blob of plastic. I'm the one that turns it into money." Inventor: "Before I brought you this process, the only artwork you could get people to look at was mustaches on subway advertisements." Therien: "That is the typical wailing of the non-creative technician. Envy, pure envy for genius." After the artwork shrinks down: Therien: "Beautiful, beautiful, the work of genius." Inventor: "The work of science." Collins: "I figured the little fellow from the plastic company figured he'd get himself a new sculptor."