2009 comments (Art & Science Connections archive)

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 url"">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):
https://researchcooperative.org/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):
https://researchcooperative.org/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:
https://researchcooperative.org/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
===============================================