Читать книгу Art and Science - Eliane Strosberg - Страница 7

2. A dynamic history

Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier and His Wife, Jacques Louis David, 1788

Lavoisier was the father of the chemical revolution. His wife was an artist who studied with David, painter of the above portrait. She also illustrated Lavoisier’s laboratory notes and translated English scientific papers.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Purchase, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, gift in honor of Everett Fahy, 1977 (1977.10)

The artist-scientist

Today, most artists and scientists live in distinct socio-economic worlds, but this was not always the case. It is of course impossible to know if the Stone Age artist was considered equal to the healer. The abundance of expertly executed cave paintings proves that some artists were highly skilled, and the mere fact that they were afforded the time and means to practice during the daily struggle for survival allows us to assume that the their role was important.

A clue to the artist’s social status in ancient times is contained in the Hammurabi code (c. 1750 B.C.), one of the oldest written law codes. The architect and the sculptor were considered equals to the butcher and the metal worker, whose functions were closely associated with ritual practices. Knowledge and art—architecture, sculpture and painting—came under the authority of priests. The major task of artists, whose names were not recorded, was to master materials in a strictly prescribed manner.

Creations bearing a signature first appeared in Ancient Greece; however, creativity in the contemporary sense was foreign to the Greeks, for whom arts and crafts were synonymous. The motivating force of self-expression was referred to as techne.

Greek vase painting representing a foundry, fifth century B.C.

The Greek god Hephaestus (Vulcan to the Romans) is said to have wrested fire from the earth’s bowels and used it to smelt metal. The union of the Prime Metallurgist with Aphrodite (Venus) symbolized the alliance of science with beauty. In Ancient Greece techne inspired art; the Greek verb tikein means to create.

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Aristotle wrote: “The nature of all techne is to understand the genesis of a work of art, to research the technique and theory behind it, to find its principles in the person who gave birth to it, and not in the creation itself.” Originally, “technique” did not simply designate methods of fabrication; also it carried symbolic and spiritual connotations.

The Romans copied their Greek predecessors, and it is often thought that they excelled in feats of engineering rather than art. After the fall of Rome in the fifth century, interest in both art and science faded and their memory was obliterated by repeated invasions. Knowledge re-emerged slowly. During the Middle Ages, the building of cathedrals and the growth of cities allowed the artisans to gain their independence.

Pythagoras, Chartres Cathedral, late twelfth century

During the Middle Ages an important school of philosophy was established at Chartres where subjects such as optics were studied. The ancient thinker Pythagoras is shown here. Others found in the sculptures there include Aristotle (not visible on this image), represented with the symbols of dialectics; Euclid, accompanied by the geometer’s tools; and Ptolemy, by the astronomer’s.

In the fifteenth century, Lorenzo de Medici (1449–1492) founded a school for the most gifted in order to provide them with basic training in geometry, grammar, philosophy and history. The success of this organization was such that, within a few decades, more than 1,000 academies sprang up in Italy alone. Within these institutions, a grounding in art meant learning the rules of perspective and studying anatomy, just as it does in many art schools today.

Renaissance artisans gradually gained respect and repute. As interest in their work increased, so did the attention paid to the individual artist. Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446), the developer of one-point perspective and designer of the famous Florence Cathedral dome, was the first to bear the title of architect. Just one century later, Michelangelo (1475–1564) would be described as a “genius” by the public.

Painting Academy in Rome, Pierfrancesco Alberti, sixteenth century

Brunelleschi and Botticelli made decorative as well as functional objects. The academies functioned like modern research laboratories, with specialists working under the supervision of a coordinating director. Right, a human corpse is dissected.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; The Elisha Whittelsley Collection/Elisha Whittelsley Fund, 1949 (49.95.12)

While Renaissance artists dared to challenge popes, most of their scientific contemporaries had to pursue research secretly, and were viewed as enlightened amateurs. Yet they used measuring instruments similar to those used by artists, and they investigated analogous concerns. In fact, artists and scientists functioned in parallel.

By advancing a logical explanation of the world rather than a spiritual one, science would slowly erode religious dogma. Newton, the author of the theory of universal gravitation, became immensely famous while still alive; but most scientists would not benefit from any official status until the nineteenth century.

Isaac Newton, William Blake, 1795–1805

William Blake, the painter, engraver and visionary poet who made this ironic portrait, was a precursor of the Romantic artists.

Color print with ink and watercolor on paper, 181⁄8 × 235⁄8 in. (46 × 60 cm)

Tate Britain, London

The rupture in modern times

To explain the workings of the universe, scientists increasingly favored mechanical concepts, leaving emotional concerns to the purview of art. The more science progressed, the more artists rebelled against it. While the French Revolution destroyed artistic patronage, it spurred technical inventions such as printing and photography. The illustrator, until then an essential recorder of historic moments, suddenly felt threatened. His task could seemingly be carried out just as well, if not better, by machines!

The profusion of scientific inventions in the early nineteenth century gave rise to new terminology. The word “scientist,” coined by the British in 1863, and constructed according to the same logic as the word “artist,” slowly replaced the traditional designation “natural philosopher,” which was still in use.

Scientific developments were heavily dependent on industry and economics, and thus inextricably linked to power. In response to the public’s craving for knowledge, popularizing magazines such as Scientific American began appearing in the middle of the nineteenth century. From then on, science would play a central role in society and researchers would finally become paid professionals.

In the meantime, since artists were no longer needed to represent reality, many took upon themselves the challenge of interpreting that reality. In so doing, they unwittingly re-established conceptual links with science. Despite their role as “society’s conscience,” few artists today have attained the social status of scientists. For example, there is no Nobel prize in the visual arts.

Artists’ rewards are often unpredictable, whereas scientists generally receive salaries. Of course, although the market occasionally propels an artist to unimaginable heights of fame and fortune his earnings are generally meager. Yet he does enjoy a precious privilege: relative freedom in creation.

The role of museums

Throughout history, works of art have been made that resemble true marvels of science and technology. Sometimes, it is impossible to determine whether a creation is of the artistic or scientific order. Understanding an object’s significance contributes to the emotion it produces.

Art can be enjoyed at various levels; aesthetic landmarks exist in science as well, but their appreciation is generally left to specialists. The teaching of science is not expected to emphasize aesthetic aspects and tends to concentrate on theories that “work.”

Traditionally, art’s end point was “to produce beauty,” not to provide information. However, art is a testimony and, as such, generates knowledge. The “research” of contemporary artists often resembles a mental construction, transmitted in a visual form, appealing more to the intellect than to the senses. Artists originate ideas which, when sufficiently innovative, become a form of information.

Gallery of the Louvre, Samuel F. B. Morse, 1831–33

As of 1737, the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture started to organize regular exhibitions at the Louvre. Artists could hone their skills by copying the masters, but the general public was rarely admitted. Samuel Morse (1791–1872), who developed the electrical telegraph and its code, also painted at the Louvre. He was president of the New York Academy of Design.

Oil on canvas, 733⁄4 × 108 in. (187.3 × 274.3 cm)

Terra Foundation for American Art; Daniel J. Terra Collection, 1922.51

Museums are reliable indicators of the value that a society places on culture. Created in Ancient Greece around 300 B.C., the Museion was a sanctuary for the muses, a study center principally for mathematics—although specimens of plants and animals were assembled there. During the Renaissance, “antiquarians” started once again to collect objects which were displayed in their “curiosity cabinets.”

In the eighteenth century, the age of the great explorers, the idea of a national museum took root in various countries, as it became increasingly necessary to house nature’s marvels as well as multiple treasures of the wealthy. The next step might possibly have been the creation of a vast “encyclopedic space,” but for practical reasons, specialized museums were favored instead. Science and art had taken divergent routes.

Regardless of the nature of their collections, museums today give priority to activities such as conservation, research and teaching. In some art museums, vast spaces lavishly deploy technology to enhance the presentation of paintings and sculpture. Science museums exhibit their collections from an aesthetic vantage point. In this way, museums, ancient or modern, remind us that art, science and spirituality are intrinsically linked. As repositories of knowledge, they are real teaching laboratories: “Museums are houses which only host thoughts,” said Marcel Proust.

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel

This computerized map illustrates the restoration process. Conservation has always been a subject of intense controversy. In Imperial Russia, hundreds of paintings were detached from their original supports with deleterious effects. The contemporary approach emphasizes damage prevention rather than repair—in the manner of modern medical practices, and utilizing some of its tools: X-rays, lasers, electronic microscopes, echography.

Art and science: an adventure

Modern art history starts in the Renaissance, when patrons such as the Medici family began collecting Greco-Roman objects. It did not unfold chronologically, but rather like a puzzle—whose different pieces appeared at irregular intervals, in places without any apparent link.

Another two centuries elapsed before scientists started to show interest in prehistory. When cave art was discovered, scholars were at a loss to determine its origin. Indeed, how could they have imagined that such astonishing works were made prior to biblical times? (The term “prehistory” was coined in 1867.)

The history of art varied through time and from one culture to another. Sculpture, for instance, was considered a major art form in the Western world, whereas in Ancient China it was regarded as just another product of manual labor carried out by the lower classes. Conversely, in the West writing was viewed as a communication tool, while in China it was revered as the highest art.

For a long time, the story of art was one of styles. New currents were received with scepticism. The Romanesque style was named for its resemblance to Roman art, which was considered unrefined. Gothic, from the word “Goth,” was brought into use by Renaissance humanists, with pejorative intent. Arrogance was expressed towards those whom critics dubbed “Impressionists” or “Fauves”! (In science, too, innovation can disturb; concepts such as “universal gravitation” or the Big Bang were long subject to scientists’ scornful laughter.)

Initially developed by amateurs, art history has become a discipline using advanced technology: measurement of carbon-14 levels in organic material reveals the age of ancient objects (this technique was invented in 1946 by Willard Frank Libby, whose combined passion for chemistry and archaeology earned him the Nobel Prize). The genetic study of ancient populations, and of organic materials (parchment manuscripts, bone artefacts, etc.) have prompted a complete reinterpretation of many concepts. Revolutionary results sent historians of all kinds back to their books.

The Beginnings of Art History, Serge Strosberg, 1998

Destroyed by Vesuvius’ eruption, the town of Pompeii was rediscovered in the eighteenth century. The information gathered about Ancient Roman culture had a considerable impact on the development of art history. The excavations were of such importance that the Bourbon rulers of Naples kept the operation secret. Even Johann Winckelmann, the father of “scientific” archaeology, was admitted with great difficulty to the site. Later, when European nobility flocked to Italy, “surprise excavations” with “guaranteed discoveries” were organized to that effect!

Art history’s interpretation, or questions of conservation, are influenced by multiple factors: biography, stylistic analysis, iconography, psychology, socio-political analysis, feminism, structuralism, and so on.… Science now plays a key role, but many see herein yet another trendy sign. Moreover, science is not infallible—its history has fluctuated, like that of art.

During Antiquity, science would go back to either its technical or spiritual roots: for example, in Greece c. 500 B.C., sophia meant “technical ability” before it became associated with the notion of wisdom.

Several schools of thought functioned in parallel: there were the Materialists; Plato’s followers who took a conceptual approach; the observers of nature, who were influenced by Aristotle; and finally the pragmatic thinkers of Alexandria. Philosophers revised rival theories, establishing in this way what would much later be called “an intellectual tradition.”

Scientia, in medieval Latin, referred to knowledge in general; reasoning, although based on different assumptions from ours, was nevertheless often elegant. The Arabs practiced, commented, taught and transmitted science.

Curiosity Cabinet, Serge Strosberg, 1998

During the Renaissance, collectors assembled coins, instruments, fossils, anatomical specimens, and miscellaneous objects. In 1657, Leopoldo de Medici founded the Academia del Cimento—the first organized research institute since the destruction of the museum of Alexandria in 641. Modern research started with basic activities of assembling, comparing and classifying.

Through an approach which combined technical and intellectual exercises, research in the West was reactivated during the Renaissance, paving the way for new fields of investigation. A progressive thought pattern slowly emerged.

Research methods varied from one discipline to another. Eighteenth-century physics was quantitative and deductive; nineteenth-century biology—for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution—was qualitative. Despite their common search for truth, the many domains of science proceeded at diverse paces, employing different methods and models.

Scientific innovation is scarcely conceivable without the assimilation of prior knowledge; established facts need to be re-evaluated. There are no specific criteria defining a breakthrough, that is, before experimental proof. Research picks up speed when different groups tacitly adhere to a scheme, as happens in art. And changes often take place in the midst of competition, passion and anxiety!

Science is no longer synonymous with a quest for the absolute truth, as recently developed theories of “chaos” and “uncertainty” suggest an inherent limit to knowledge itself. Scientific method divides reality into segments, which permits the examination of tiny cross-sections. This reduction is the great enabler of scientific success. All sciences, whether descriptive like botany, or structural like physics and mathematics, are contained within a “frame” which allows scientists to establish a logical order across a multitude of phenomena.

Science does not always follow a linear path. Breaks occur, such as with Newton’s physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Alexandre Koyré, a modern historian, considered that: “history is not the reverse progress of science, that is the study of outdated steps whose modern truth would be the vanishing point. It should, on the contrary, be an effort to research and explain to what extent ancient attitudes surpass previous notions in their own day.”

Relativity, Maurits Cornelis Escher, 1953

This lithograph by the Dutch artist Escher presents a visual paradox, combining three distinct perspective views into a coherent whole. According to the writer Arthur Koestler: “Einstein’s space is no closer to reality than van Gogh’s sky. The glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist’s discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter imposes his; an order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is based on the observer’s frame of reference, which differs from period to period as a Rembrandt nude differs from a nude by Manet.”

While developments in science can, by definition, quickly become obsolete, art at its best presumably never ages. Picasso said: “To me, there is no past or future in art. If a work of art cannot live always in the present, it must not be considered at all. The art of the Greeks, of the Egyptians, of the great painters who lived in other times, is not an art of the past; perhaps it is more alive today than it ever was.” In art, as in science, content might age, while the aesthetic dimension remains. Implicitly bound to the evolution of human thought, knowledge tends to develop in several areas simultaneously.

Taking, for example, the “evolution” of the pictorial style from Manet to Cézanne, some might consider that Cubism, which followed, is situated in a “logical” perspective. Could it then have developed under the brush of artists other than Picasso or Braque? One might raise the same question about Darwin or Einstein. The fact that similar discoveries often happen simultaneously in different places suggests that science holds the key to its own change. Why should things be different in art?

The history of ideas remains to be written; art and science have often evolved in similar ways, with phases of linear accumulation, stagnation and ruptures marked by ingenious discoveries.