Читать книгу Art and Science - Eliane Strosberg - Страница 6

1. The art and science dialogue

While the interaction between artists and scientists is often fruitful, a true dialogue was not always easy to establish. To begin with, dictionaries offer several definitions of “art.” One describes art as a form of “science or knowledge.” Another suggests that “art is a series of means and procedures tending towards an end.” In some dictionaries, the concept of beauty appears in only fifth position as an element in art. Needless to say, creators do not depend on such descriptions to define who they are and what they do.

Many consider that works of art should be appreciated for their intrinsic value or their innovative vision of the world. In the past, art served religion, magnified the power of patrons, reflected skills aiming at producing elegant objects. Nowadays it is used mainly for self-expression, and even as therapy.

When it comes to the word “science,” most dictionaries offer a description which seems, at first glance, quite obvious. Science is the knowledge of the laws of nature. In other words, it embodies all studies which carry a universal meaning and which are pursued by research methods based on objective and verifiable facts.

However, we should bear in mind that for centuries, metaphysics, theology and philosophy prevailed; science, too, was once nurtured by beliefs. Concepts such as “method and objectivity” have appeared only recently, and to some, science still remains mysterious.

Divergence and convergence

According to the mathematician and philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “In art, nothing worth doing can be done without genius; in science, even a moderate capacity can contribute to supreme achievement.” Such a strong opinion deserves a few comments.

Whereas the artist often tries to stir emotions, the scientist has to convince. Art looks into the “why;” science also raises the question of “how.” For the Cubist painter Georges Braque: “art provokes, while science tries to reassure.” Science, working towards collectively recognized and precise objectives, tries to remove ambiguities, which art accepts and even emphasizes as inevitable in the realm of subjective experience.

Symmetry patterns found in different cultures, Peter Stevens, 1981

During Antiquity, artists produced these schemes in their decorations. Not until the nineteenth century were mathematicians able to analyze and duplicate such motifs.

It is commonly thought that everyone has the ability to appreciate art, while science is accessible only to some. What is more, scientists and artists generally consider themselves very different from each other. The “left brain/right brain” hypothesis reinforces this notion. It states that scientists, whose tasks are primarily logical and analytical, mainly use the left side of the brain; the right side, seat of intuition and imagination, would be more developed in the artist.

Despite, or perhaps because of their differences, artists and scientists are bound by a mutual fascination: opposites attract. Is it that the artist’s need to draw from science merely expresses an urge to use whatever means are available to serve his art? Maybe the scientist’s search for convergence simply stems from an inclination to create coherent models to explain the world.

Together, art and science develop innovative concepts, often using the same subjects to the same end. Giving birth to ideas and forms is what makes an artist or a scientist. To scrutinize the cosmos, examine nature or study the brain, are explorations common to both. Following parallel paths, art and science are in many ways mutually enabling.

Cubist painting, for example, might be said to anticipate in certain respects the theory of relativity. In architecture and the performing arts, however, science and technology often work as catalysts.

“Who is ahead of whom” is irrelevant, because the other always catches up in the end. Paul Valéry, the French writer, felt that: “Science and art are crude names, in rough opposition. To be true, they are inseparable … I cannot clearly see the differences between the two, being placed naturally in a situation where I deal only with works reflecting thinking matters.”

Aesthetics and method

The word “aesthetics” designates a branch of philosophy concerned with the “science of beauty” in nature and art. Beauty and discipline are important for both artists and scientists. The latter readily admit that logical reasoning is sometimes overestimated, citing the imagination as an integral part of their creative process.

Scientific theories may take years to develop, during which time aesthetic consideration plays a major role. “A beautiful theory killed by a nasty little fact” said Thomas Henry Huxley, a biologist and science popularizer. Many scientists find their greatest satisfaction in aesthetic contemplation and describe their research as a quest for beauty. Masterpieces such as Aristotle’s Physics or Newton’s Optics seduce first and foremost by the elegance of their logic.

Some of the most famous artists, on the other hand, frequently place discipline and method above aesthetic consideration. Bach, a brilliant manipulator of “ready-made formulas,” considered himself a craftsman and reportedly said: “I have to work very hard; whoever works as hard will get as far.” Beauty did not seem to be the only goal of his music, which was composed from “divine mathematics.” Igor Stravinsky’s approach to music was extremely painstaking and structured, too. He portrayed the musician as “a craftsman whose materials of pitch and rhythm in themselves harbor no more expression than the carpenter’s beam or the jeweler’s stone.”

Painters can be equally disciplined. Thus this remark by the Post-Impressionist Seurat: “To see poetry in what I have done … No, I applied my method and that’s all there is to it.” As for Matisse’s preoccupations with his huge compositions, they seem to be matched by the mental gymnastics of scientists deeply absorbed in shaping their hypotheses. Guided by formal rigor, he stated: “A moment comes when each part has found its legitimate relationship, and from there on, it would be impossible to add a single line to the image without having to start the painting all over again.” Braque even said: “I love the rule which corrects emotion.”

Although science aspires to objectivity, scientists are not always more objective than artists. Galileo deliberately ignored Kepler’s work, and Pasteur did not immediately adhere to Darwin’s. The need to test established knowledge, the thrill of exploring a new domain, the hope of discovering a new order, all compel scientists to accept the same basic challenge: to reveal what no one has expressed before, and thus leave their mark.

Most creators are totally committed to their tasks. Whatever the nature of their skills, those who succeed in imposing an innovative vision of the world often enjoy particularly productive careers.

Polyvalence

Despite their commitment to their chosen field, artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer were also gifted scientists. Conversely, scientists like Nikolaus Copernicus and Louis Pasteur were talented artists. Such relations are hardly limited to the visual arts. The number of mathematician-musicians (for example Euler, Schweitzer and Einstein) is even more striking.

Numerous artists have been interested in science, and scientists in art, but most of them focus strongly on only one domain, while their interest in the other remains secondary. Time constraints and technical barriers explain such a choice. Moreover, one cannot underestimate the distinction between interest and real talent (interest alone by no means leads to significant performance).

Can one easily switch from art to science and vice versa? For an artist to become a scientist is placing the stakes very high, but the reverse is no easier. What accounts for creativity and who is destined to excel in its pursuit? Such questions have long puzzled great minds. According to the Dutch chemist, Jacob van t’Hoff, the first winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry: “The most innovative scientists are almost always artists, musicians or poets.” Creativity might indeed depend on a capacity to integrate traditionally incompatible forms of experience. But this is not always the case: Darwin and Cézanne, to cite just two examples, were not particularly polyvalent.

The Spiral Forms in Nature, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1831

The Romantic writer Goethe was also a biologist. He introduced the notion of “morphology,” which would be fundamental to the development of the theory of evolution of species. This drawing suggests the mutation of a leaf into a flower.

Klassik Stiftung Weimar; Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv

Still the question remains: what favors, in some of the most inventive minds, an aptitude and appetite for both science and art? Certain forms of art may exhibit affinities to scientific disciplines—and hence mental processes may link the architect to the astronomer, the stage director to the physicist, the psychologist to the painter. Perhaps a chemist thinks like a decorator, and a mathematician like a musician.

Inspiration and visualization

Centuries ago, creators were expected to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, building along a prescribed tradition. Nowadays, with an increasingly demanding public, innovation has become the driving force in art. Yet novelty, too, whether in art or science, requires a base. (For example, examination of Picasso’s painting Les Demoiselles d’Avignon reveals neo-classical sources [Delacroix and Ingres] as well as less familiar ones for African and Polynesian statuary.) The stylistic sources behind a work of art are often heterogeneous and more difficult to trace than are the origins of scientific theory; moreover, the artist is not required to explain them.

Since creation can never be fundamentally new, there might be no such thing as a muse or a mystery of creativity, but various interpretations co-exist. The “unconscious” eventually replaced the role of the gods as the creative source. In the nineteenth century, Henri Poincaré, a mathematician and philosopher, advanced a theory according to which the creative process passes through various stages such as preparation, incubation, illumination, verification. In this way, numerous thought combinations would be tested by the “unconscious,” and only those meeting some sense of harmony would be selected.

Encounters with an idea or an image are essential in art and science. In order to create, both need to be visualized either mentally or on paper, or through measurement. Quantification and visualization may be said to represent two sides of the same coin.

The physicist Wolfgang Pauli studied the role of symbolism, using collective models that were applied to scientific concepts. Many artists and inventors linked their discoveries to epiphanic moments when their minds were “floating”—think of “eureka,” Archimedes’ cry in his bath—and they often describe these moments in poetic imagery. Because such moments are repeatedly mentioned, they deserve our attention.

What should one think of Newton’s sudden revelation while watching an apple falling from a tree? Gutenberg reportedly said that his idea for the first printing press struck him like a ray of light while observing the operation of a wine press at a festival. Lumière said that he invented the moving picture system while watching his mother use a sewing machine. Einstein declared that latent mental images stimulated his imagination for years before he was able to draw any conclusions from them: “In my case (psychical entities) are of a visual and sometimes of a muscular type. Conventional words and other signs have to be searched for laboriously only in a second phase.”

Some of the world’s greatest scientists—Aristotle, Alhazen, Bacon, Descartes, Einstein—were fascinated by optics and visualization. So, too, some of the greatest painters—Velázquez, Vermeer and Turner—methodically analyzed light, color and image formation. “What I did not draw, I did not see,” said Goethe.

In the past, researchers were puzzled by the mysterious functioning of the eye. Today, they try to understand how the brain decodes the images it receives from the eye.

Studies of twentieth-century geniuses—Picasso, Einstein, Freud and Stravinsky—conclude that no universal characteristic has yet been found to link their phenomenal creativity, other than the spirit of independence. What makes a genius remains a riddle worthy of the Sphinx.

Research

Some artists do not sketch: they let the painting reveal itself as they go along. Others proceed through trial and error, as do scientists. In this manner, Cézanne explored the effect of fracturing effects of light on his Mont Saint-Victoire, returning to the motif over and over again. Matisse’s letters about his own privileged theme, La Danse, reveal a similar concern: to solve a problem. Altering the placement of a single mark or slightly modifying a color in a painting can easily affect or even destroy the overall design.

When analyzing Picasso’s preliminary drawings for major paintings or collages, the steps he took to construct a picture can be retraced. Calder, another creator who enjoyed a long career, allows us to trace his progressive approach in sculpture. Newton and Einstein reworked their equations and mental images during long years of continuous self-training. The excitement generated by enigmas (like jigsaw and crossword puzzles) seems to inspire creativity.

The Vitruvian Man, Leonardo da Vinci, 1492

During Antiquity human proportions were used to determine the dimensions of sculptures and monuments. This practice re-emerged in the Renaissance and is still in use. The circle and the square in which The Vitruvian Man is inscribed symbolize, respectively, the cosmos and the earth—analogies of the macro and micro cosmos, with man at the center of the universe.

Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice

Fragments of an Archetype, Catherine Ikam, 1980

This monumental sculpture was one of a series of installations. Composed of sixteen video monitors, it was placed inside a huge neon circle.

Installation view at the Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1980

The Anatomical Angel, Jacques Gautier d’Agoty, eighteenth century

Artists, like scientists, use visualization methods. Inspired by Newton’s Optics, Jacob Christophe le Blon invented a technique (1710) for color engraving based on the combination of the three primary colors: yellow, red and blue. Through a purely mental exercise, these would be mixed to produce the range of colors being represented.

Color mezzotint

Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris

When a concept no longer holds up under critical scrutiny, analysis of its failings can point to the necessary changes. Any new concept constitutes a challenge to the existing ones, which must be surpassed. Fundamental changes rarely occur in a flash, but tend to evolve as the problems are being solved, one after another.

To search … up to what point? According to the physicist Pauli: “The happiness that man feels in understanding seems to be based on inner images pre-existent in the human psyche with the external objects and their behavior.” While Braque noted that: “The painting is finished when it has erased the idea.”

According to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist: “The spirit of research and conquest is the supreme essence of evolution. It penetrates all those who have ever dedicated their intelligence and their lives to art or science.”

Electromagnetic field lines, James Clerk Maxwell, 1871

The physicist Maxwell visualized the concept of an electrical field, graphically, using “experimental lines of forces on paper.” This notion of a space capable of transmitting radiation emerged along with progress in electricity and magnetism. Fascinated by optical phenomena, Maxwell was also an important player in the development of photography, and produced the first color photograph.

Education and new technologies

Nowadays, specializing has become inevitable, but over-specializing destroys creativity, which thrives on open-mindedness. Play remains a primary form of learning, whatever the age.

Goethe and Edison never had a formal education. Einstein and Picasso opposed the traditional school system, and other creators ignored academic training. It is thus tempting to assume that having no constraints provides a better chance of approaching the world creatively. However, the value of a formative but flexible training can never be understated.

By expanding education beyond its traditional segmentation, it is being redefined. Psychologists suggest the existence of transversal forms of intelligence: spatial, social, verbal, etc., which would go beyond the set bounds of artistic or scientific concerns.

Will researchers identify “creativity genes”? Creativity is surely not entirely determined by genetic heritage; in many ways, the social and cultural environment remains a key factor. Artists, like scientists, are increasingly drawn into multidisciplinary activities because of economic pressure, and sometimes by choice.

Convergence is particularly strong during times of change, such as the present. Art and science use the same tools and materials; technology then becomes their main link. (Technology is a recent term denoting the industrial applications of science.) According to Marshall McLuhan, the visionary media specialist, “The medium is the message.”

View of an installation by Joseph Beuys

The German artist Beuys proclaimed that “everybody is an artist” and everything is art, including political and social processes. He used the most ordinary objects and materials in his performances, and displayed didactic skills to expound on his philosophy for a new democracy.

Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris

Virtual Museum, Jeffrey Shaw, 1991

Inside this interactive work of art, one can explore different rooms of an imaginary museum containing paintings, sculptures and computer-designed images.

In a computerized and digitalized world, the spectator becomes a permanent student—whether willingly or not. The writer Arthur Koestler felt that: “Creativity is a type of learning process where the teacher and the pupil are located in the same individual.” “Creativity,” “education,” “entertainment” are now intricately woven concepts because new technologies favor the relationship between artist, creation and spectator.

This link is considerably reinforced through modern means of communication, potentially transforming the social order altogether. Of course, technology will not bring all the answers. But, thanks to new media, it is indeed conceivable that everyone has a creative potential that can be explored, in art and science, or any other domain.

Orb, Bill Parker, 1990

Work of art, gadget or scientific tool? This glass sphere containing a combination of rare gases, reacts to heat when touched, by emitting light through an electrode at its center. To observe, play and learn was this creator’s intention.