Art & Science Connections

Add a Comment

Comment by Ray Wittenberg on May 27, 2009 at 3:46pm

I'm doing life drawing at the moment, I mean there's a life model in the building and I've just taken a moment to catch up on the Reasearch Co operative adn I'll get back to the drawing momentarily because the science is awesome, and your perfectly right Peter saying that new understanding is the aim of science because she's a sweet model to say the least. perhaps a little like an old observation is new again. There's something in that for me to think about as I continue for sure.

Comment by Peter Matthews on May 19, 2009 at 1:32pm

It is true that new techniques are often used not to address any new question, but merely because new techniques automatically provide a new picture. The mistake is believing that 'new observation' is sufficient as an aim for science, rather than new understanding. Most researchers who stay active long enough learn to mix old and new techniques to arrive at new pictures and new understanding. I started out with new techniques 25 years ago and have been reverting towards pencil and paper ever since. When I finally do understand something, I'll probably only be able to mutter inaudibly into the arm of my hospital chair.

Comment by Ray Wittenberg on May 19, 2009 at 12:37pm

In the end it will be technique that prevails: that is our ability to step outside emotion and embrace the machine. For that is why we go into space, why we investigate atoms and neurons and DNA: and refine technique so completely that emotion only gets in the way and would better be appropriated and filed away as we all continue on as Frankensteins; learning to walk, learning to think, learning to speak in a given way without feelings, without regard, for this is how we behave. This is the act of technique - were art and science have complemented each other to create a new order where natural history is another compartment, and the study, the thesis, the paper is just wallpaper you present to the judges whose sole purpose is to assess the value and integrity of your application to technique because there never was anything else to say.
And I'm available for scientific illustrations and renderings as well by the way...

Comment by Ray Wittenberg on May 11, 2009 at 8:15am

I suppose one of the obvious examples of an entire art movement opening general public imagination to scientific sensibilities would be the Impressionists. In their attemptes to deconstruct light and affect a way of seeing they took on the mantle of scientists and approaced this with the same discipline that photographers take to modern image making. To do so successfully them Impressionists needed to refine their technique into design and refine it to a point where they could make the statement, which would represent them as artists best as well as presenting the character of the age they lived in in their visual artistic statement. This is were technique becomes design, becomes art in the same way as technique becomes design becomes science. All this is is about the us, our story where art no less than science is the language and the two cross to pollenate each other quite often.

Comment by Ray Wittenberg on May 6, 2009 at 1:28am

art and science is an idea, with strong humanitarian traditions. Their stories relate a common history for all of us and our place here on the surface of this wonderful planet. Many artists and scientists have multiple talents, the Renaissance period in Europe is an obvious place to look, and which enabled singularly intelligent ideas to emerge from our common curiosity and need.
Nothing has changed, we are all telling our story but thanks to science and art our techniques have evolved

Comment by Peter Matthews on May 5, 2009 at 11:01pm

Many scientists employ professional illustrators to help communicate scientific ideas and results, but most scientists do not. And the opposite is also true: Many artists enjoy the challenge of helping to communicate scientific ideas and results, but most do not. Most artists may have never considered doing such work.

In this area of the Research Cooperative, we encourage visitors and members to think about the many possible connections that can be made between art and science. Our aim is to encourage more active communication between artists and scientists. An illustrator is just one of many kinds of artist who can contribute to the communication of science. There is almost unlimited scope in science to work with artists - of many kinds - for the purposes of scientific communication.

Many social, historical and physical disciplines have also made art a subject of research, and artists too have studied science and communicated their views of science. Behind the visible work of many artists, there is often an invisible history of intensive personal research.

Any connection between art and science can be discussed here, and we invite members to review and recommend links to art and science projects anywhere in the world

Comment by David Purnell, M.A. on May 5, 2009 at 2:50am

Dear Peter,

I would like to offer some comments about the two related groups on The Research Cooperative: "Communicating science" and "Art and Science Connections."

First -- that you've created these two groups -- I think is terrific; a wonderful service to many.

From reading the stated purpose of each group, I interpret that "Communicating science" is intended to be more utilitarian, i.e., as a liaison between scientists and science communications specialists (visual artists, among others) -- for the explicit purpose of publishing.

I interpret that "Art and Science Connections" is intended to be more of a "think tank" (both philosophical as well as utilitarian), i.e., to stimulate 1) scientists to consider possible artistic applications of their particular scientific endeavors as well as science in general, and 2) artists "of many kinds" to consider possible scientific applications of their artistic specialty. This would include all fields of expressive discipline -- visual art, music, dance, sculpture, video art, architecture, design, writing, installation art, and others.

Perhaps it would be helpful to members of The Research Cooperative, as well as to visitors, if you cross-reference both groups -- one with the other -- so it is immediately clear how the two groups perhaps overlap and how -- in intent -- they differ. You want to make certain no one -- at a casual glance -- misconstrues these two groups as redundant.

With kind regards,
David Purnell, M.A.
NEW YORK WEST Medical Illustration Studio
skyotter@aol.com
===============================

The groups, as currently listed (at 5/04/2009):

Communicating science (group):
http://cooperative.ning.com/group/scienceanddevelopmentnet/forum/topics/1981558:Topic:2234
I have established this support group at the Research Cooperative because the aims of SciDev.net are very worthwhile, and members of our Cooperative may be able to help SciDev as story contributors (science writers), editors, translators, illustrators, and so on. SciDev has made Science Communication one of its main topics of interest, and states: "communicating science poses a challenge for all."

Art and Science Connections (group):
http://cooperative.ning.com/group/artscienceconnections
Many scientists employ professional illustrators to help communicate scientific ideas and results, but most scientists do not. And the opposite is also true: Many artists enjoy the challenge of helping to communicate scientific ideas and results, but most do not. Most artists may have never considered doing such work.

In this area of the Research Cooperative, we encourage visitors and members to think about the many possible connections that can be made between art and science. Our aim is to encourage more active communication between artists and scientists. An illustrator is just one of many kinds of artist who can contribute to the communication of science. There is almost unlimited scope in science to work with artists - of many kinds - for the purposes of scientific communication.

Many social, historical and physical disciplines have also made art a subject of research, and artists too have studied science and communicated their views of science. Behind the visible work of many artists, there is often an invisible history of intensive personal research.

Any connection between art and science can be discussed here. Please join our group and use the message board below to start new topics for discussion. Questions, answers, and further information concerning this group can be posted in the comments board below the messages

===============================================
Peter Matthews wrote:

Dear David,
Here is a first draft introduction for a group page on art and science. You are most welcome to join, or to make any comments in private or public about this.

See:
http://cooperative.ning.com/group/artscienceconnections

"Art Science Connections' is easier to say, by can be misunderstood as referring only to 'Art Science', something which may be a very specialised field of forensics, rather than the full range of art and science relationships.

Best regards, Peter
===============================================