Art and science
2018; Springer Nature; Volume: 20; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.15252/embr.201847061
ISSN1469-3178
Autores Tópico(s)Science Education and Perceptions
ResumoScience & Society27 December 2018free access Art and science Intersections of art and science through time and paths forward Lian Zhu Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA Search for more papers by this author Yogesh Goyal [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3502-6465 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Search for more papers by this author Lian Zhu Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA Search for more papers by this author Yogesh Goyal [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3502-6465 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Search for more papers by this author Author Information Lian Zhu1 and Yogesh Goyal2 1Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA 2Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA EMBO Rep (2019)20:e47061https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847061 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures.AM PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info In the 19th century, the Spanish neurologist and pathologist Santiago Ramón y Cajal studied brain tissue and cells of the nervous system through a microscope. His observations not only led to important scientific discoveries, which eventually won him a Nobel Prize, but also to sketches that would adorn both the pages of textbooks and the walls of New York art galleries. The medieval mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, also known as Fibonacci, once pondered a puzzle about an idealized rabbit population. His solution was an eponymous sequence of numbers that are now widely found in dentistry to photography and music composition. Ramón y Cajal and Fibonacci were simultaneously impactful to science and art. History is rife with many more examples of scientists who were also artists and who have contributed to both science and art in unique and often unexpected ways. … Although artists and scientists are both driven to observe and create, they largely reside in different cultural spheres… Today, the relationship between art and science in our society is more complex: Although artists and scientists are both driven to observe and create, they largely reside in different cultural spheres—sometimes brought together serendipitously, other times intentionally. It is impossible to generalize relationships between art and science since neither is a fully defined nor homogenous category 1. Instead, we present vignettes on the historical and contemporary relationship between visual art and science, and offer perspectives on the connection between the two with respect to their inputs (tools and processes) and their outputs (objects and communication of ideas). Finally, we propose ideas for how our society can cultivate these relationships and what might be gained from it. Art and science through time Art and science have coexisted, often indistinguishable from each other, across time and space. A wealth of early documented examples comes from the Islamic culture, where art and science joined in intricate star-shaped architectural geometries, and the use of "Nur" (light) and material science to design utensils and lettering in manuscripts 2. During the Renaissance, the Italian polymath Leonardo Da Vinci was simultaneously a painter, sculptor, engineer, botanist, and scientist. Indeed, the term "Renaissance man" would come to be synonymous with a person with many talents and knowledge. The separation of art and science into different cultures in the West took place during the 19th century, which incidentally or consequently coincides with coining of the term "scientist" in the mid-1800s 3. Both disciplines share their origins in the representation and interpretation of nature, but, over time, their methodologies diverged, and the scientific school of thought became largely driven by specialization and hypothesis-based inquiries 3. Art, in turn, developed its own schools and methods, from classical art, which tended to observe and imitate nature, to branches of impressionism, cubism, and expressionism. Nonetheless, there are many places of convergence between the two, both in the past and today. Art and science both render ideas about the world into a form that allows the viewer to connect to the idea. During the Renaissance, sketches of plants, animals, human anatomy, and stars done in lieu of cameras were not just beautiful pieces of art, but also forms that required extraordinary technique and skill in order to communicate their observations. Beyond these pieces is an idea that is central to both art and science: the primacy of observation and interpretation. As Peter W. Parshall and David Landau write in The Renaissance Print: "Accurate visual representation was more than just a technical accomplishment. It was a highly specialized form of observation… Making illustrations was a way of checking facts, and by mid-century it was being supported by other means as well. Public and private botanical gardens were being planted, and collections of dried specimens were being assembled into herbaria. In such a climate the illustrated herbal was bound to become the standard point of reference for scholars attempting to devise different schemes of classification". There are many examples of how art and science intermingled based on observation and interpretation, ranging from a physical object based on both engineering and artistic design to an informative visual piece that acts as a communication tool. An example of the former is one of the world's architectural marvels, La Sagrada Familia, which Antoni Gaudí designed and started building in Barcelona in 1883. Gaudí was inspired by geometrical features found in nature and used his observations of nature's organizing principles to design the physical structure of the church. Gaudí himself said, "I am a geometrician, meaning I synthesize" (from La Sagrada Familia website). This approach is reflected in the unique branching tree columns and staircases with seashell-like curves placed through the church. An example of communication tools is the sketches and paintings of insects and plants by the 17th-century naturalist Maria Sibylla Merian. Her drawings were disruptive at the time, because they were based on observations that had not yet been within the mainstream print culture. In particular, her sketch of a giant spider devouring a hummingbird was often criticized during the Victorian era as being impossible, but was later confirmed. For Merian, observation, science, and art were all parts of the same process, and her paintings were both a way to communicate and understand the daring and (then) surprising process of metamorphosis (Fig 1). Figure 1. Metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterflyOne of many sketches of Maria Sibylla Merian, where she studied the metamorphosis of insects, and published in 1705 under the name Metamorphosis insectorum Surinamensium. https://goo.gl/xfGECC Public Domain. Download figure Download PowerPoint Art and science both render ideas about the world into a form that allows the viewer to connect to the idea. An observation, whether of a spider, a cell, or human nature, is necessary, but not sufficient to result in a meaningful work of art or a scientific finding. It is the interpretation, the focusing of the camera lens, the telling of a story, the choice of what part of the observation will be rendered and explicated, that gives life to it. This interplay underlies much of the modern scientific methods and processes of art, as both artists and scientists do not comprehensively copy, but rather interpret and curate what they see into something meaningful and relevant. Contemporary integration of art and science The line that separates art and science in the modern age remains a superficial one; at the core, artists and scientists observe and interpret the world around them, though they may use different methods and expressions. This artificial cultural divide is prevalent in our society, but some visionaries and institutions are consciously bridging it. For instance, medical schools are beginning to incorporate art into their curriculum. In fact, there is evidence that the use of art can help medical students "apply their observational and interpretive skills" and "accept the facts that ambiguity is inherent to art, life and clinical experience and there can be more than one answer to many questions" 4. Once the need to reestablish the close connection between art and science had become apparent, other institutions began creating centers and think tanks for this purpose 5. Two pioneering examples are the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT and Experiments in Art and Technology, a collaboration between New York artists and scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories. This momentum benefits from a growing interest by scientific journals and magazines in publishing articles and dedicated issues that bring together art and science. The founding of the journal Leonardo, which publishes art and science studies, was another important step in this direction by creating a dedicated academic space for artists and scientists to collaborate and share ideas. But to make sense of the data, we need more creative approaches, and art can lend new representations of previously incomprehensible forms to represent data in transformative ways. More recent institutional endeavors in Europe include the Wellcome Trust and CERN. Wellcome Trust has initiated multiple support programs, most notably the Wellcome collection, which uses exhibitions and podcasts among other mediums to develop substantive connections between science, medicine, and art. CERN invites artists to spend time at the institution, facilitating close collaborations with scientists to understand and represent the structure of the universe. This desire of modern artists to better understand nature, life, and the universe is reminiscent of the past. During the Renaissance, Albrecht Dürer, the artist who later inspired D'Arcy Thompson's landmark book On Growth and Form, prepared some of the first drawings and woodcut maps of stars and constellations. Dürer's illustrations made it into generations of scientific texts and continue to inspire educators, scientists, and artists alike. Threads, such as those between Dürer's drawings, Thompson's work on mathematical biology, and modern educators and artists, often exist across disciplines and span centuries. In turn, they enable latent and emerging connections to have a radical and lasting impact. An important feature of the modern merging of art and science is the understanding and communication of abstract and higher-order ideas. Like Merian, who communicated her observations of insects and plants using sketches, Tadashi Tokieda, a mathematical physicist at Stanford University, creates artistic demonstrations of abstract mathematical concepts. Tokieda, a painter and mathematician, uses his unique background to create elegant toys that not only demonstrate exciting, realizable phenomena from his research, but also help to develop new hypotheses. David Goodsell, a structural biologist at The Scripps Research Institute, uses watercolors and computer-aided illustrations to present the world of cellular structures and molecules. His work gives access to the nanoscale structures of life that would otherwise invisible to human eye. Reciprocally, artists also use abstract scientific drawings and concepts to create art. The steel sculptures by Edward Tufte, a pioneer of data visualization techniques, are not only "abstract glinting art", but much like historical sketches of organisms and stars, also an accurate representation of physical principles, including some that are inspired by the diagrams of Richard Feynman 6. ... collaborations between art and science can also lead to deeper, less directly tangible ideas. Another dimension of the contemporary integration between art and science is the use of technology. Digital tools, including software such as Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator, have not only become a popular platform to create and share art, but are also driving technical improvements. Similarly, recent developments in semi-automated computational platforms allow to create and dynamically revise illustrations of natural processes based on new findings. This approach is likely to accelerate the pace at which society at large learns new concepts. More advanced applications of technology in the art include the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based robots as a tool. Interestingly, this has led to a current debate 7 as to whether such technologies can work autonomously without the intervention of artists themselves. The collaborative efforts of contemporary science and art can also have important consequences for society through enabling communication of ideas and access to nature. For instance, Foldscope, a microscope that costs less than a dollar 8, was created using the principles of origami, the Japanese art of paper folding (Fig 2A and B). This microscope has a transformative impact, especially in developing countries, where its ease of assembly and low cost open the window into the microscopic world (Fig 2C and D). This not only increases the available repertoire of images and scientific information at the grassroots level, but also stimulates interest in nature photography (Fig 2D). Similarly, Tokieda's demonstrations and videos of mathematical concepts as well as Goodsell's illustrations of protein structures are freely available on the Internet. The work of Fabian Oefner, a Swiss artist, who uses scientific concepts including electricity and magnetism to engineer beautiful time-lapse art, is the flip side of the same coin. Oefner makes scientific concepts accessible to a broader audience by making "the invisible effects of the natural sciences known". In addition to addressing access to science, these collaborations can also touch on global and societal issues including climate change, migration and displacement, diseases, and pollution. In these endeavors, whether through photography, recycled waste, glass work, metal scaffolds, or knitting patterns, science and art jointly turn to pressing issues and present creative solutions. An important feature of the modern merging of art and science is the understanding and communication of abstract and higher-order ideas. Figure 2. Foldscope: Inspiring society by joining art and scienceA schematic depicting how joint ideas (A) from art and science resulted in the creation of Foldscope (B). In turn, people from all age-groups (C) from across the globe are using this low-cost microscope to capture images of scientific and artistic merit (D). Images captured cover a wide range including (left to right) crystalized citric acid, silver berry scaly hair, onion skin cells, and feathers. The images used in this figure are kindly provided by Manu Prakash and Rebecca Konte from team Foldscope. Download figure Download PowerPoint Unraveling complexity through active collaborations Our newly acquired ability to collect large amounts of data has revolutionized many fields from medicine to urban planning. By way of example, we can now take sub-micron resolution images of how molecules move in a cell. Like an artist sketching a rare plant species, these images communicate aspects of nature that we had not seen. But to make sense of the data, we need more creative approaches, and art can lend new representations of previously incomprehensible forms to represent data in transformative ways. In fact, scientists have already begun to take inspiration from the work of artists such as the charts Charles Minard drew of Napoleon's march (Fig 3) and Pablo Picasso's lithographs (Fig 4) to better understand and effectively communicate the multidimensional features of their data 9. Figure 3. Charles Minard's map of Napoleon's war against Russia of 1812The two-dimensional chart covers multidimensional data including temperature, dates, location, direction, and the number of Napoleon's men. Wikipedia/Public Domain. Download figure Download PowerPoint Figure 4. Scientific inspiration from Pablo Picasso's lithographsParallels between progressive abstractions of Picasso's lithographs of bulls and understanding the three-dimensional organization of sixteen cells inside a Drosophila egg. This is one of the many examples of the abstract representation and visualization of complex scientific phenomenon where scientists have taken inspiration from art. This image is provided courtesy of Jasmin Imran Alsous and is also a winner of the Autodesk Art and Biology Award at VIZBI, 2016. Download figure Download PowerPoint An interesting area where art has helped to detangle the complexity of data is studies of the structure and connectivity of the human brain, which started as early as in the late 1800s. Danielle Bassett, a neuroscientist and MacArthur Fellow, views her multidimensional network data with an artistic lens by enlisting artists and designers to help visualizing brain connectivity. This team recreates neural networks in a physical ("volumetric") space, to see the data in a way they could not before while producing a piece of art. Such partnerships are also inspired and enabled by cutting-edge technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and rapid prototyping techniques, which are becoming increasingly accessible and inexpensive. Martin Kemp, a leading expert in the field of art and science, argues that the ability to imagine and to make sense of things in three dimensions at a high level is uncommon. Therefore, it is valuable to have methods that enable the creation of 3D and simulated renderings of the visual works. In this way, as artists and scientists share and use these technologies to develop their thinking and projects, their relationship may also develop further. While this may raise the impression that art and science are natural partners, it remains an open question how they can meet and engage with each in this age of hyper-specialization, where it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to be trained in multiple fields. This can be addressed by early career support through doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships that promote the collaboration and exploration of art and science. This would not only lead to new ideas, but also help create new human phenomena that result from having experts trained in both. One inspiring example of this new type of expert is Matteo Farinella who, after receiving such a fellowship for his doctoral work, became a neuroscientist and an illustrator of comic books. In a parallel vein, active support of collaborations between artists and scientists would cultivate spaces where people of different specialties can work and learn from each other. In fact, scientific laboratories and corporate offices are now formalizing positions for resident artists. Dedicated business initiatives such as Digizyme, a company which makes 3D animations of molecular processes, create spaces for both skill sets to work with each other. Reciprocally, art institutes may promote scientist-in-residence positions, as is already being practiced by The Institute of Contemporary Art in London, UK. Such positions will not only lead to the sharing of tools between artists and scientists, but also of ideas and observations. Likewise, science–art conferences, such as VIZBI, workshops, and competitions, can play an important role in creating a platform for artists and scientists to meet, discuss, formally propose ideas, and initiate long-term collaborations. Princeton University's Art of Science Initiative has already resulted in multiple cross-disciplinary collaborations (personal communication, previous lead organizer JA Alsous). Another contemporary shared phenomena are online movements, where enthusiastic individuals such as Julia Buntaine, an artist and neuroscientist, are leveraging social media platforms to inspire collective participation. Although we have focused on concrete ways in which an artistic lens can be beneficial for looking at scientific questions, collaborations between art and science can also lead to deeper, less directly tangible ideas. Perhaps, the greatest potential lies in their ability to clarify societal and universal questions. For instance, artistic representations can also elucidate changes in societal disparity; a recent study reported that children are drawing more female characters as scientists than before 10. In this time of political uncertainty and fear of the unknown, art (e.g., comic books and graphic novels) addressing scientific concepts such as global health can help us to bring scientific discoveries into homes, increasing access and creating an ownership and belief in science that extends far beyond the scientific community. Concluding remarks At their core, art and science are both about observation and interpretation. Whether it is by using scientific data or technologies such as AI and VR to create art or by using art to understand and communicate science, both work hand in hand. Society has achieved a great deal of specialization that has allowed us to increase the depth of our studies and the pace of our technological progress. By connecting to art through conversations and projects, scientists gain new tools to visualize natural phenomena and communicate its complexities. These tools will enable scientists, like medical students studying art, to create wiser and more empathetic technologies that are considerate of not just what they can do, but how they might impact society. At the same time, we hope that artists will continue to use emerging scientific technologies as tools for their work and to be inspired by scientific observations of nature, whether it is molecules, algorithms, or celestial bodies. Our vision is that their synergy will enable us to better understand and apply our work to urgent societal and universal questions of access, equity, and global citizenship. In order for artists and scientists to access these rich futures, we need development of infrastructural and systemic changes to bring forth collaborations and exchanges of knowledge. Our lives are enriched through understanding the universe and more importantly our place within it. A joint venture of art and science is an important, even indispensable, step in that direction. Acknowledgements We thank Martin Kemp, Brigitte Nerlich, and Puneeth Chakravarthula for helpful discussions and pointing us to interesting examples and thoughts we had not considered before. We thank Sir Keith Burnett, Denis Wirtz, Anna Mendlin, Earle Havens, Megan Wheeler, Alice Tang, Ian Mellis, Jasmin Alsous, Connie Jiang, Deborah Schlein, José Ferreira, Orsolya Symmons, Arjun Raj, Ruth Arnold, and Paul Villoutreix for providing suggestions to improve the manuscript. L.Z. would like to thank the NSF graduate fellowship (DGE-1656466) for their generous support. Y.G. would like to thank the Schmidt Science Fellows program, in partnership with the Rhodes Trust, for their generous support. L.Z. and Y.G. would like to thank the NSF grant MCB-1411898 and Wallace Marshall for providing the initial platform to discuss our ideas. Y.G. would also like to thank Stas Shvartsman for providing the freedom and encouragement to pursue his interest in art and science during his graduate studies at Princeton University. Y.G. would like to acknowledge the Raj Lab environment, which encourages having pixel-perfect figure alignments and using rigorous visualization techniques to present scientific results. Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References 1. Kemp M (2005) From science in art to the art of science. Nature 434: 308–309CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2. Minder R (2013) The wonders of the Islamic worlds of art and science, illuminated. The New York Times.Google Scholar 3. Snow C (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4. Schaff PB, Isken S, Tager RM (2011) From contemporary art to core clinical skills: observation, interpretation, and meaning-making in a complex environment. Acad Med 86: 1272–1276CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5. Williams G (2017) Are artists the new interpreters of scientific innovation? New York TimesGoogle Scholar 6. Cressey D (2012) Physics: modelling Feynman. Nature 489: 207CrossrefCASWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7. Spinney L (2018) Can robots make art? Nature 557: 490–491CrossrefCASGoogle Scholar 8. Cybulski JS, Clements J, Prakash M (2014) Foldscope: origami-based paper microscope. PLoS ONE 9: e98781CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9. Callaway E (2016) The visualizations transforming biology. Nature 535: 187–188CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10. Miller DI, Nolla KM, Eagly AH, Uttal DH (2018) The development of children's gender-science stereotypes: a meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Dev 89: 1943–1955Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Box: Further reading For more on the intersection between art, science, and science communication: Kemp M (2006) Seen/unseen: art, science, and intuition from Leonardo to the Hubble telescope. Oxford University Press Kemp M (2011) Leonardo. Oxford University Press Alda A (2017) If I understood you, would I have this look on my face?: my adventures in the art and science of relating and communicating Entire issue: Abbott A, Rutherford A (2005) Artists on Science: Scientists on Art (Ed.). Nature 434: 293–293 Bullot NJ, Seeley WP, Davies S (2017) Art and science: a philosophical sketch of their historical complexity and codependence. J Aesthet Art Crit 75: 453–463 For extended reading on examples covered in the main text including Fibonacci series, Albrecht Dürer, David Goodsell, and D'Arcy Thompson: Ricketts RM (1982) The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 81: 351–370 Bartrum G, Grass G, Koerner JL, Kuhlemann U (2002) Albrecht Dürer and his legacy : the graphic work of a Renaissance artist. British Museum Thompson DW (1942) On growth and form Goodsell DS (2016) Atomic evidence: seeing the molecular basis of life Further literature on digital and AI-based art: Wands B (2006) Art of the digital age. Thames & Hudson Johnson GT, Autin L, Al-Alusi M, Goodsell DS, Sanner MF, Olson AJ (2015) cellPACK: a virtual mesoscope to model and visualize structural systems biology. Nat Methods 12: 85–91 Coeckelbergh M (2017) Can machines create art? Philos Technol 30: 285–303 More literature on data visualization techniques: Tufte ER (1990) Envisioning information. Graphics Press Tufte ER (1997) Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Graphics Press Zastrow M (2015) Data visualization: Science on the map. Nature 519: 119–120 Frankel F, DePace AH (2012) Visual strategies: a practical guide to graphics for scientists and engineers. Yale University Press More examples on incorporating art training in medicine: Gurwin J, Revere KE, Niepold S, Bassett B, Mitchell R, Davidson S, DeLisser H, Binenbaum G (2018) A randomized controlled study of art observation training to improve medical student ophthalmology skills. Ophthalmology 125: 8–14 Scott PA (2000) The relationship between the arts and medicine. Med Humanit 26: 3–8 Stuckey HL, Nobel J (2010) The connection between art, healing, and public health: a review of current literature. Am J Public Health 100: 254–263 Previous ArticleNext Article Read MoreAbout the coverClose modalView large imageVolume 20,Issue 2,February 2019Cover: A placental mammal‐specific microRNA cluster regulates sociability in mice. Loss of specific miR379‐410 members leads to hypersocial behaviour in mice and enhances synaptic transmission in the hippocampus, suggesting an "anti‐autistic" function of the cluster. From Martin Lackinger, Gerhard Schratt and colleagues: A placental mammal‐specific microRNA cluster acts as a natural brake for sociability in mice. (Illustration by Uta Mackensen) Volume 20Issue 21 February 2019In this issue FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsLoading ...
Referência(s)