Reality changed
There have been a number of musings on this blog recently … and here are mine on a recent BBC 4 documentary, called Beautiful Equations. (Repeated, 20 January at 20.00) Artist and art critic Matthew Collings explored connections between art and science – a topic I am fascinated by, married as I am to a scientist! He showed how scientists are guided by beauty, and how artists search for truth. The question raised is, is the perception of “beauty” and “truth” the same in each domain?
When Collings was at art college, it was asserted that there was a correlation between the creative genius of Einstein and that of Picasso, and ever since he has questioned whether or not this was true.
By looking at five of the most important scientific equations starting with E=MC2, he explored the concept of beauty in science. All five equations were extraordinarily simple, yet perfectly explained an aspect of the complex workings of the universe. For quantum physicist Paul Dirac, beauty was a compass bearing. The more simple the equation, the more beautiful it was, and the more beautiful it was, the more likely it was to be true. For Stephen Hawking it was a matter of elegance rather than beauty.
One scientist in the programme was convinced that the beauty perceived by the scientist was the same as that perceived by the artist. Collings was not so sure; he considered that art and science hold different meanings regarding beauty. He invited scientists to visit his exhibition of abstract painting. They were looking for representation in his geometric patterns, wanting to know what truth the shapes, colours and marks were a representation of.
Perhaps the more important connection was the way revolutionary breakthroughs in science and art open up the interior universe of the mind, and change the way we perceive truth or reality. With his theory of relativity, Einstein made it possible to think differently about the relationship between time and space in the physical universe. Picasso, influenced by scientific discoveries, reduced forms to geometry and painted figures from multiple perspectives all at the same time. Cubism opened up the possibility to take on different perspectives and appreciate multiple realities. These new discoveries allow us to think in ways that simply would not have been possible before.
Photo: Jenlen on flickr
15 thoughts on “Reality changed”
Leave a Reply
> Next Post Introducing Christian
< Previous Post Photography competitions
Artlab23 Collective
0 Comments
The aim of the Collective is to provide a mutually supportive environment which will...
Read more
Student stories – Jane Murdock
4 Comments
The grant, by enabling the partaking of this exhibition, has produced some long-term affects...
Read more
OCA Degree Show Showcase 21/22
0 Comments
Welcome to our online Degree Show Showcase 21/22 where we are celebrating a number...
Read more
Tutor news: Caroline Wright
0 Comments
Caroline, alongside others, worked on SPIRAL, a project that explored multi-sensory dimensions of materials...
Read more
I am also very interested in art and science having spent the last 12 years developing work for the Skin Project which included working with consultant dermatologists and some scientists. This work has included looking at skin disorders and the patterns formed on the skin that can have the appearance of fractals when looked at under a microscope.
We can see the interconnectedness in art and science everyday in nature. For example it is contained within the fractal patterns in leaves, clouds, snowflakes, nountain ranges, river networks, lightening and so on. Using computer analysis fractals have been found in the work of Jackson Pollack, they are not just drips and splashes. Also in the work of Max Earnst fractals exist by the method of Decalcomania, the act of pressing paint between two surfaces then pulling them apart. When we look at African art and architecture we can see fractal like structures, circular houses appear in circles of circles,scaling patterns found in African textiles and sculpture.
I also find the dialogue between art and science an interesting topic, particularly within a philosophical context. In a way I agree that the beauty sought after by scientists and traditional artists is the same, perhaps because they’re both a product of the Enlightment.
It seems that the holy grail of science is to find formulas and explanations, the simpler the better, which brings order to the universe and makes it a predictable machine – hence the beauty of E=MC2. Leaving modern art aside, historically artists have always tried to re-organise the world when translating it into whatever medium they work, also imposing on it artifical order – the landscape photographer/painter and their strict compositional and perspectival rules, for example.
But to me the world as we know it is in fact pure disorder – continually increasing enthropy as scientists would put it – and some artists have been able to capture that while conveying its beauty. ‘Chaos’ by Josef Koudelka (http://www.phaidon.co.uk/store/photography/chaos-9780714839004/), Lee Friedlander’s ‘Recent Western Landscapes’ series (http://contemporaryartlinks.blogspot.com/2010/10/lee-friedlander-recent-western.html) and Jem Southam’s work(http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/past_exhns/southam/index.html) spring to mind.
Very interesting post Alison.
“But to me the world as we know it is in fact pure disorder – continually increasing enthropy as scientists would put it”
“Pure disorder”? — Yes, this is part of life but how about theories of negentropy, emergence, increasing complexity, self-organising systems, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Thanks for the links — beautiful.
Thanks for the article Alison, it prompted me to watch the re-run of the program a few days ago. I had a similar reaction to Jose’s to the program – a dislike of those reductive equations – but then remembering the days when I did study science – the beauty that I found in it was in complexity and variation. Which is also the beauty that I could see in the Collings’ abstracts.
I think even science has moved on from those enlightenment ideas now what with chaos theory, self-organised criticality and so on, it might have been interesting to hear Matthew Collings talk about that!
Of course, chaos is not random, it is deterministic, however knowing the set-up is next to impossible so the outcome is unpredictable. In true randomness knowing every detail of the set-up does not allow the result to be predicted, in chaos the result can be predicted if the set-up is known completely.
I suspect that Post-modernism developed to take account of the difficulty in prediction that Chaos Theory, Uncertainty etc. revealed and rejected the Modernist idea of meta-truths; however, since Post-modernism we seem to be moving to the idea of accepting that there might be meta-truth but its existence is fleeting, ever changing. The Real might be returning but its nature might be unpredictable,and just because simplicity is difficult to achieve and approximations might make complexity and chaos inevitable, the search goes on!
Hi Peter
Not sure I understand the difference between chaos and randomness — could you explain?
It seems that although scientists are finding out that so much is predictable, that there is also a fundamental “mechanism” (not the right word) which gives rise to novelty, emergence, sheer creativity….
I’m interested in what you say is developing out of postmodernism… Despite all of its positives — its honouring of multiple perspectives and experiences of “reality”, it seems that a lot of its themes have become predictable. In “This is Modern Art” Matt Collings (I am a fan at the moment!) said that its themes were “easily listed” — and that was in 1999 — and were “repetition, the media, illness, mutation, the body, surveillance and fragmentation.”
Exciting to think what might come next!
Randomness it not deterministic, the outcome is not dependent on the starting conditions and is totally unpredictable. Chaos is deterministic, dependent on the starting set up conditions but the final result is radically changed by minuscule changes in these set up conditions, perhaps unmeasurable or unobservable and so the outcome, although capable of prediction, is beyond our ability to do so. In many cases the very act of trying to determine the starting conditions will alter them so changing the outcome in unexpected ways.
I have become more interested in the connection between art and science, from reading Huxly’s descriptions of the pleats in his trousers seeming like endless waves and canyons while taking LSD and so changing the chemical balance of the brain, to Esher’s twisting of our perceived visual perception. To the Surrealist epoch and their work with automatic writing and Freudian dream analysis. On a personal level I feel that Science is there to establish facts for man and Art enhances the mystery of our animal souls in a Jungian sense.
In my opinion art speaks more eloquently to the complexity of the human condition than science is capable of at present.
For me Joseph Campbell offers more insight at that level than Richard Feynman.
Yes, art and science are talking about different aspects of the whole thing. Broadly art speaks about interiors — how things look or feel from the inside, and science about exteriors. One is better than the other at when talking about their areas of expertise….!
Sorry to go on about this (!), but what I find interesting is the integration rather than the differences, how science is moved forward by creativity and imagination, and that changes how we experience life and that affects what is expressed in art.
I don’t believe that they are that dissimilar as creative activities. They’re both about making imaginative leaps to bring together apparently disparate elements to create new meaning.
As for the aesthetic I believe it is always technologically led, new technologies provide new opportunities for sorting, combining and displaying; new scientific paradigms suggest alternative ways of thinking about our relation to the reality we experience and speak to in the work.
As a layman when it comes to art history it seems to me that representational art became uncertain when science became uncertain and probability replaced mechanical inevitability; the hierarchical symbolism was lost; or lived on as a special case rather than being immutable law.
The most creative person I’ve ever met is a scientist by training (Phd in fluid mechanics). He doesn’t currently work in science but in administration. And he is simply full of ideas. Every issue or problem that comes up instantly generates two or three (or more) options to address them. He gets very engaged in his solutions but if they are not taken up will instantly start coming up with more. The sheer speed and ruthless inventiveness of his thinking is fascinating to watch. I’m inclined to agree that as creative activities science and art have many common features at core. Methods, techniques, process are different of course.
How about this for creativity?
“Can street lights be replaced by trees? Taiwanese scientists believe that they can using gold nanoparticles to induce luminescence in leaves.”
‘The bio-LED could be used to make roadside trees luminescent at night. This will save energy and absorb CO2 as the bio-LED luminescence will cause the chloroplast to conduct photosynthesis,’ says Su.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemTech/Volume/2010/11/leaves_glow.asp
Luminescent roadside trees would make a great installation!
You’ve made the connection that makes it art though Alison by re-conceptualising it ‘ }
Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; many of us have created some nice practices and we are looking to exchange solutions with other folks, please shoot me an e-mail if interested.