Art & science

383 Pages·2015·66.187 MB·English

by  Strosberg, Eliane

About Art & Science, 2nd Edition
“An accessible work, rich and well researched”
—Le Monde
“Attractive, heavily illustrated, and up-to-date”
—Library Journal
Art and Science is the only book to survey the vital relationship between these two fields of
endeavor in its full scope, from prehistory to the present day. Individual chapters explore how
science has shaped architecture in every culture and civilization; how mathematical principles
and materials science have underpinned the decorative arts; how the psychology of perception
has spurred the development of painting; how graphic design and illustration have evolved in
tandem with the methods of scientific research; and how breakthroughs in the physical sciences
have transformed the performing arts. Some 270 illustrations, ranging from masterworks by
Dürer and Leonardo to the dazzling vistas revealed by fractal geometry, complement the wide-
ranging text.
This new edition of Art and Science has been updated to cover the ongoing convergence of
art and technology in the digital age—a convergence that has led to the emergence of a new
type of creator, the “cultural provocateur” whose hybrid artworks defy all traditional
categorization. It will make thought-provoking reading for students and teachers, workers in
creative and technical fields, and anyone who is curious about the history of human
achievement.
About the Author
Eliane Strosberg holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. from the Free University of Brussels and was a
Research Fellow at Harvard. The cofounder of the cultural organization Rencontres Art et
Science, she has also served as a consultant to UNESCO. Her other works include The Human
Figure and Jewish Culture (Abbeville).
Art & Science is also available in paperback.
To view our complete selection of e-books, visit www.abbeville.com/digital.
Melencolia I, Albrecht Dürer, 1514
(See chapter 6.)

Contents
Cover
About Art & Science
Frontispiece
Foreword
Preface
1. The art and science dialogue
2. A dynamic history
3. Science in architecture
4. Decoration: a path to hi-tech
5. Painting and cognition
6. The language of graphic design
7. Technique and the performing arts
8. An art and science symbiosis
Bibliography
Index of Names
Index of Subjects
Photography Credits
Copyright
Foreword
What is common to art and science? Creation. Or rather the drive that impels creativity. The
thrill of the word and sound, of the color, lines and shapes of art. The temerity of the scientific
hypothesis which extends beyond reality. What is the aim of a creative act in art or science? To
surpass reality. Art suggests the infinite variations of reality’s manifestations, which are
impossible to capture with the usual senses. That such expressions are part of a long and
complex chain is all that we know.
One of my teachers at Oxford, a Nobel prizewinner, said: “We should seek what others have
not seen, think what others have not thought of.” Is that not the essence of creation? Malraux
lucidly stated this in a text on cultural heritage written in 1936: “The convincing force of a
work … lies in the difference between it and the works that preceded it.” He illustrated the
subject by quoting Giotto, but could have made his point just as well by discussing Einstein’s
theory of relativity.
Occasionally, when science reaches beyond its frontiers, it merges with philosophy.
Likewise, art can be dematerialized—boiled down to pure ideas. Artists exercise the same
self-discipline and rigor as scientists.
Creation, whether in art or science, is a long journey. Some believe that youth is a
prerequisite of creativity. This is not necessarily the case. We obviously all admire Mozart’s
precocity, but equally admirable is the expression of a maturer mind, one whose critical
faculties have been nurtured over time and through experience.
It is difficult to be thrilled by anything that is too neatly served up. I do not particularly
appreciate pure evidence, creations to which nothing can be added. I much prefer to come upon
works in the making, which draw audiences into the exhilarating struggle of creation—in
which anyone can be a co-creator, a participator in the act of creation. This is what I thought
recently while listening to the great cellist Rostropovich who, at every performance, re-creates
music with unparalleled enthusiasm: it is this invitation to share beauty that embodies the true
act of genius.
“Dare to know”: such was the motto at Oxford. Perhaps the opposite is even more true:
“Know how to dare.” To dare to invent, to innovate and create, to escape routine and provoke
the unpredictable. As the days roll on, until the very end, we should fully reinvent each day
itself and dare to paint it with fresh colors.
—Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO (1987–1999)
Preface
The first edition of this book was part of a UNESCO transdisciplinary cultural program. Its
style is deliberately casual and narrative; it is not a history book, but rather a collection of
stories aimed at stimulating interest in the subject through dialogue.
The project deals predominantly with the visual arts. The first part, on architecture, is a
general overview. Decoration, painting and graphic communication constitute the other main
sections. Music and the performing arts are only dealt with in the context of their relationship
with the visual arts. Literature is not included in this work. Given the vastness of the subject,
the main focus is on Western culture, although numerous examples from other civilizations have
been included. This new edition has been updated to reflect the dramatic changes in the fine
arts driven by new scientific discoveries and new technologies.
A number of eminent personalities have supported this effort: René Berger, writer and
honorary president of the arts department at the University of Lausanne; Jean Dausset, Nobel
laureate in medicine and modern art connoisseur; Frank Popper, specialist in philosophical
questions relating to art and technology; Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate in chemistry and author
of books on aesthetics.
The text also received input from specialists in their respective fields: Marianne Clouzot,
artist; Philippe Comar, artist and professor at the École Supérieure des Beaux-Arts; Françoise
Gaillard, professor of philosophy at the University of Paris VII; Antoinette Hallé, curator of
the Musée de la Céramique at Sèvres; Bruno Jacomy, engineer, associate director of the Musée
des Arts et Métiers; Elaine Koss, deputy director of the Art College Association; Bernard
Maitte, specialist in the history of science and knowledge; Sarah McFadden, art historian and
an editor of Art in America.
This book would not have been possible without the generosity of those who lent their
iconographic documents as a courtesy—artists, photographers, museums, librarians, publishers
and corporations.
The author would like to thank Tereza Wagner and Michiko Tanaka who literally carried this
project within UNESCO. She is immensely grateful to Donny, Serge, Muriel, and Josh for their
unconditional support, and wishes to thank all those who contributed directly or indirectly to
realize this project.
—Eliane Strosberg, December 2014
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