Linda Francis/ I certainly concur with Leonard’s post on legitimacy, although it is difficult to know how to judge things that we want to call art of any kind, and within that sci-art. The problem both Taney and Daniel have identified is the problem of relevance or authority in society as a whole.. But I ask this question: what do we want from sci art, and how is that similar or different from what we want from art in general. Taney and Suzanne speak about Activism or social relevancy in art. Bio-art when it is positively positioned gives us some excellent and useful ideas in trying to solve various pressing problems we have as a society-However, is the “art” we are attempting to label an art that maybe does not operate in any quotidian sphere, and is there no need for it at this point? I don’t mean to exempt design from art per se, on the contrary, we are in a kind of exploded Bauhaus position.. growing numbers of practitioners in the arts and a concomitant expansion of the aestheticized life. I wonder though what Mondrian would have thought if he saw the drinking glasses MOMA sells with his painting on it or his name on a condo or nightclub. But, as I said earlier, my experience with effecting a positive outcome regarding conservation was not through art but through political and legal intervention.