|
Stephen Wilson Science and Art - Looking Backward/Looking Forward Stephen Wilson is Professor, Conceptual Information Arts, San Francisco State University, and author of "Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science and Technology" (MIT Press, 2002) and the unpublished manuscript, "Great Moments in Art and Science." Science and art. Twin centers of cultural generativity. Homes to significant landmarks of history. For centuries the educated person was expected to master both. Science was called natural philosophy. Since the Renaissance, however, specialization has become the norm. Science and art have accelerated in their pursuit of their own esoteric agendas, while general literacy in both fields has been declining. Even the knowledge of the well educated often stops at the landmarks learned in survey courses in art and science. Their knowledge does not extend to the dynamic, living forms of art and science as practiced by contemporary artists, scientists and technological innovators. Experts in one area are not expected to be experts in the other. The two fields' goals, cognitive frameworks, working procedures, communities of interest, standards, and methods of dissemination, are seen as separate, as is the importance given by each to rationality, intuition, and emotion. Over the last century the wisdom and accuracy of this separation have been challenged. In his milestone 1960's "Two Cultures" essay C.P. Snow stated that sciences and humanities were diverging so far that inhabitants of each world were losing the ability to understand the other. Educators attempted to address this problem by introducing innovative curricula. More recently, critical theorists have radically questioned the assumptions that see the two as unique and point to the shared cultural influences shaping both. Specific efforts have been undertaken to probe and remediate the separation between art and science. Some artists have focused on the ideas and research generated by the sciences. Special collaborative initiatives have attempted to explore crossovers - for example, EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology), the artist-in-residence programs established in think tanks such as Xerox PARC and Interval Research, and the international art and science journal Leonardo. The Art Center Gallery and California Institute of Technology co-sponsored Neuro, which supported collaborations between artists and scientists, can be seen as another junction in this venerable historical circuit. Despite these efforts, the integration between the arts and sciences has not been well consummated. Within the arts, interest in science and technology has been relegated to a marginal position. The mainstream artworld has considered science relatively unimportant and irrelevant. Similarly, though many scientists may love "high" art and music, most consider the arts irrelevant to their work. They doubt that significant contributions can be made by anyone without proven academic and research credentials within their science disciplines. They do not have much experience with contemporary experimental arts and do not understand or like it much. Hardly a fertile field for experiments in integration! Yet, the idea that the sciences and the arts could somehow enrich each other is an idea that keeps recurring. The urgency to integrate grows because of science's impact upon wide areas of everyday life, and its challenges to basic notions about the nature of time, space, universe, life, and consciousness. The details of how cross-fertilization between the two fields might be most fruitful could use careful fleshing out. To that end, this essay offers background by reviewing some history of art/science integration and clarifying challenges and opportunities in future integration. Historical Overview Art and Science have had a variety of relationships throughout history. This whirlwind tour can only briefly visit a few periods of interest. The goal is to use the past to imagine possibilities for the future. The periods reviewed include: 1. Paleolithic/Neolithic era; 2. The Renaissance; and 3.the decades of 1870-1920. Paleolithic/Neolithic Histories of science and histories of art start with the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras (old and new Stone Age, roughly 30,000-2000 BCE). In texts such as Janson's History of Art or Taton's History of Science, many of the early landmark accomplishments are the same in each: cave paintings of France and Spain, Stonehenge in England, and copper and bronze objects in China and the Near East created by the first humans to work with metals. During these eras proto-science and proto-art seemed to share common concerns. Key features included pervasive curiosity, observing nature carefully, organizing that data, theorizing, experimentation, and representing and communicating knowledge and its implications in compelling ways. The practitioners may have even been the same people. Their audiences were the same. Their accomplishments are celebrated by contemporary scientists and artists alike; each wants to claim the work as an early example of its own. George Sarton, a well known historian of science, explained his appreciation of the proto- science of the ancient world and the likelihood that it was integrated with art and other goals in a chapter called "Dawn of Science" in A History of Science. When did science begin? Where did it begin? It began whenever and wherever men tried to solve the innumerable problems of life. The first solutions were mere expedients, but that must do for a beginning. Gradually the expedients would be compared, generalized, rationalized, simplified, interrelated, integrated; the texture of science would be slowly woven.... Were the earliest expedients nothing but expedients or did they include reasonings, religious or artistic cravings? Were they rational or irrational? Was early science wholly practical and mercenary? Was it pure science, such as it was, or a mixture of science with art, religion or magic? (Sarton, 64, p.3) Cave Paintings Starting in 30,000 BCE and extending thousands of years, Paleolithic persons created extraordinary paintings and carvings on the walls and ceilings of caves scattered throughout France, Spain and other parts of Europe. The paintings portray a wide variety of animals, along with some abstract symbols and humans. The animals are presented in a many different behaviors and poses. Some seem to have darts or arrows in their hides; some are pregnant. Almost all who observe the work express astonishment at the quality of the visual representation - both for its realism and emotional power. Both art and science historians are intrigued by the care of observation. The carvings were accurate enough for modern scholars to identify the animals' species. The cave painters also paid attention to anatomy and physiology. In hunting scenes that show animals pierced with arrows, the arrows are aimed at vital organs. When trapped or wounded animals are shown, the consequences are represented faithfully- for example, paralysis of a bison's rear legs when pierced by arrows in certain places. Stonehenge Stonehenge offers another example of a landmark accomplishment claimed by both science and art. It consists of prehistoric earth works and several circles of arranged stones. Who constructed it? How did they engineer its construction? Was it an astronomical observatory, a sacred temple, a commerce and political center? From the perspective of the arts, the construction has undisputed power. It is an extraordinary shaping of a public space that still inspires awe and appreciation. The craftsmanship and dramatic sense of architecture speaks to visitors throughout the ages. Stonehenge is also admired for its engineering accomplishments. The huge stones were brought from over a hundred miles away by a civilization that was thought to lack the technological skills and social organization to undertake such a massive undertaking. The stones were dressed and shaped with sophistication that early analysts believed required the cultural sophistication of the Greeks or Romans. Although subject to some debate, Stonehenge is admired also for its accomplishment in archaeo-astonomy. According to some theorists the arrangement of stones and other sighting elements formed a formidable astronomical observatory. The midsummer solstice can be viewed by sighting over the heel stone. Solar, lunar, and stellar phenomena were located with precision unmatched till the current century. Phenomena were tracked over 56-year cycles. The locations of eclipses could be predicted. Even more importantly for these considerations, they created a landmark that addressed both human cognitive and emotional responses. Stonehenge was a powerful method of organizing information about the movement of heavenly bodies gleaned from observation and presenting it in a compelling and overwhelming way. Bronze Age The Bronze Age refers to the era when communities started constructing tools, weapons, ornaments, and other artifacts out of bronze. Histories of science point to the discovery of metallurgy as a significant event in geology, chemistry, material sciences, and industrial technology. Early metal workers would need to be part artist and part scientist. For hundreds of thousands of years early humans used stones as tools for purposes such as construction, hunting, warfare, food preparation, and religious practice. Around 4000 BC, however, early civilizations started working in copper. This new technology appeared in many civilizations around the same time - for example, Europe, Middle East, China, North America, India. Most metals do not occur in natural form; that means they naturally occur in oxide and other combined forms that look nothing like metal. To extract them, one must smelt them. For example, to extract copper one must heat the ore containing copper to an intense heat and an atmosphere rich in carbon and sparse in oxygen. But this is not an obvious, intuitive process. Somehow our ancestors had to recognize that copper existed in the mineral deposits that look nothing like copper and then had to devise the smelting process. They also had to invent alloying processes, such as making bronze out of mixtures of tin and copper, which greatly expanded fabrication possibilities. The development of metal work is a significant accomplishment in both art and science/technology. In part the drive to discover new materials was motivated by the desire to create new objects that worked on both aesthetic and utilitarian grounds. In an article called "Aesthetic Curiosity: The Root of Invention", technology historian Cyril Stanley Smith suggests that there must be cultural room for curiosity. necessity is not the mother of invention - only of improvement. A man desperately in search of a weapon or food is in no mood for discovery; he can only exploit what is already known to exist. Innovation and discovery require aesthetically- motivated curiosity. They do not arise under pressure of need, although, of course once new properties of matter become known they are available for any use" (quoted in Raymond, p8) Renaissance The Renaissance era can be characterized by an excitement and hunger for integrated knowledge in science and art. The civic pride of the growing city-states was enhanced by supporting art and performance and practical projects that required the skills of architects and military engineers. The advancement of knowledge was valuable for commerce. The intellectual atmosphere encouraged work in all areas. Artists, engineers, and scientists were all interested in each other's activities. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) is an exemplar of an integrative artist/scientist. Hired by one of the city-states, he was a musician and organizer of court festivities, painter, and sculptor. He was also an inventor and engineer, proposing both military and public health projects. His interests also extended to anatomy, zoology, botany and medicine. Later in life he would become famous for his dissections, undertaken even though they were against the law. During parts of the Renaissance, the view predominated that people should seek wide knowledge. Leonardo incorporated scientific approaches and theory into the heart of his art processes. His careful observation and involvement with theory were essential to his art. The theme of sapere videre (knowing how to see) dominated his work. Seeing was more than just perception; it also consisted of the attempt to penetrate to underlying forces and principles. This kind of seeing also advanced science. Leonardo saw painting as a critical part of scientific process - careful observation putting one in touch with phenomena and encouraging the development of grounded theories of understanding. The admonition to carefully observe nature also extended to what we would now call psychology and sociology. Leonardo felt painters must study humans as they go about their lives and try to understand underlying motivations. Other examples of Renaissance cross fertilization include the following: Apprenticeship of artists such as Brunelleschi, Donatello, and Ghiberti to goldsmiths where they learned metallurgy and the physics of wheels, weights and motion; Verrocchio's workshop (the setting where Leonardo was apprenticed) pursued all kinds of work including painting, goldsmithing, mosaic, sculpture, engineering, and music; Andreas Vesalius, a physician and medical scientist, based his famous anatomy text, The Fabric of the Human Body, partially on drawings completed by Leonardo and other artists. Mathematics was extremely important in both Renaissance art and science. It provided both practical benefits and served as an indicator for profound shifts in philosophy. Artists found it useful in theorizing and in creating painting, sculpture and architecture. Scientists found it a profound tool for codifying observations and building theory. Artists were instrumental in developing the techniques and mind sets about abstract representations of space, rationalization, ordering of experience, and point of view that many believe set the stage for subsequent major scientific breakthroughs. 1870-1920 Decades of Creative Upheaval The era 1870-1920 was extraordinary in several areas of culture. By this time art and science had become quite clearly differentiated. Science practice and theory made revolutionary breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, medicine, and psychology. Scientists developed new paradigms such as relativity and evolution, and forged research agendas that still shape contemporary research. Similarly, artists pioneered approaches that broke conventions about perspective and representation, definitions of appropriate subject matter, the role of the self and the unconscious, nature of artistic materials and contexts, and the relationship of art to social and technological forces. They started movements that still influence contemporary artists. Inventors and industries created an unprecedented flow of new technologies that shape modern life in areas such as transportation, communication, weaponry, media, manufacture, and medicine. Historians of culture find it fascinating that both physics and art underwent major related paradigm shifts approximately at the same time. Relativity and alternative geometries challenged the sanctity of the Newtonian worldview of space and time that had served almost flawlessly for hundreds of years. Quantum mechanics challenged common sense notions of materiality of objects and the possibilities of objective observation. Science moved away from strict observational empiricism, as it had to rely increasingly on unobservable theoretical constructs. At the same time, modern art challenged the sanctity of perspective and classical rules of composition. Artists abandoned perspective and conventional thought about 3-D space. The Cubists looked skeptically at the solidity of objects and the sanctity of the single point of view. Duchamp and the Futurists explored relativistic concepts of time. Art increasingly moved away from reliance on observation toward reliance on abstract theories in order to understand and represent the essence of reality. At one time scholars thought artists might have been directly influenced by knowledge of scientific research; currently, most commentators believe that is unlikely. The view now in favor stresses the influence of a common zeitgeist. In addition to responding to the scientific/technological context at this deep paradigmatic level, artists also created a variety of responses that explicitly addressed the new developments. These responses, which still provide models of reaction today, include: Enthusiastic embrace: Some artists, embracing the new technologies with enthusiasm and sometimes optimism, sought new roles to participate in the 'progress'. (E.g. Futurism, Socialist constructivism, and the Bauhaus) Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future What can we learn from this look at the past? What is the advantage of science and art learning from each other? History shows that there are many other potentially fruitful models for art/science integration than our own. Cultures flourished when activities we now call science or art were pursued in a unified way. For example, in ancient times the combined need for aesthetic expression and understanding the world may have ultimately accelerated humanity's advancements in biology, astronomy, metallurgy, engineering and other fields. In the Renaissance, the hunger for knowledge in all fields and the recognition that useful ideas might come from outside one's own discipline fueled innovation and breakthroughs everywhere. The decades of turmoil are a bit more complex. By 1870 specialization was established and there seems to have been an asymmetry of influence. There is ample evidence that the arts were enriched by paying attention to the paradigmatic changes in science, the impact of technological society, and the availability of specific new technologies such as cinema. There is much less scholarship and speculation about influences of art on science. There are some examples of art-inspired innovation in photography, movies, and electronics but not many specifics about a broader conceptual impact on scientists and their research. However, some speculate that the opening up of cultural questioning championed by the arts may have prepared the way for scientists to take risks in their thinking. What is the future of art/science integration? Although not yet a dominant theme in mainstream art or science, there are increasing calls from within both for cross-fertilization. Projects are being initiated all over the world - for example, the Interactive Institute in Sweden, UNESCO, European Community and Canadian initiatives to investigate the role of artists in research. Strangely, in spite of initiators expressing faith in valuable outcomes, there is little understanding of the expected results and the details of how collaborations might be made fruitful. Here are some of the justifications, which range from pragmatic to more abstract claims: - Increase public support of science via art's ability to popularize research (e.g. NASA and NSF outreach programs) The time is ripe. Some in the arts realize that they must engage science in a deep way if the arts are to fulfill their historical role as cultural sentinels. They are educating themselves in scientific concepts and processes. Some in the sciences realize that research can be enriched by infusion of new questions and new interpretative frameworks. They are increasing their interest in new kinds of conceptual art that engage cultural systems such as science. Artists and scientists both must overcome arrogance born of insularity. Many scientists doubt that significant contributions can be made by outsiders, especially those doing weird experimental art. The mainstream art world needs to realize it can no longer afford to ignore the sciences. And even those artists who are interested in the sciences and come from critical theory will need to balance their analysis about science's delusions of progress, the influence of paradigmatic blinders, and the contingent nature of scientific truth with an appreciation of the creative heart of science and its augmentation of knowledge. All need to find ways to fashion fertile collaborative environments where new syntheses can be generated. Books Cited: Janson, H.W. History of Art. Henry Abrams New York , 1995 Sarton,George A History of Science. Wiley. New York, 1964 Smith, Cyril Stanley. From art to Science. MIT Press. Cambridge, 1980 Wilson, Stephen Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology. MIT Press. Cambridge, 2002 userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson Top |