This research on the similarities and differences between art & science was taken from a book called The Origins of Creativity edited by Karl H. Pfenninger (Jan Pfenninger's dad - thanks Jan!) and Judy Lemus's footage from seminar. Added are a few thoughts of my own.
Similarities Between Artists & Scientists:
For both, the creative process in not linear with time.
Both seek to discover and communicate truths about the world in which we live
Both rely on elements of choice, inspiration and serendipity
Differences:
Scientists strive for commonality, artists tend to be unique
Art needs the artist to exist, science can exists without scientists
Artists a can make things up, scientists must rely on truths
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Mysticism of Sience
Krome Barret's book, Logic & Design, In Art, Science and Mathmatics is a treasure trove of excepts and illustrations depicting the interconnections between science and art. In his introduction is an inspiring paragraph that mirrors Ernst Heackel's views on artist's and scientists from a contemporary perspective.
Barret states:
"It is fascinating to observe that physicists are moving closer to the thoughts of the ancients... of the mystics who found magic, and the origin of the universe, in number and geometry. As they search beyond our sensory scales into concepts of intergalactic space/time their models for is structure are based upon the minutest of particles."
Haeckel states -
"The tasks of scientists and artists are really identical, to depict the world around us with the precision of the scientist and the passion of the mystic."
Barret states:
"It is fascinating to observe that physicists are moving closer to the thoughts of the ancients... of the mystics who found magic, and the origin of the universe, in number and geometry. As they search beyond our sensory scales into concepts of intergalactic space/time their models for is structure are based upon the minutest of particles."
Haeckel states -
"The tasks of scientists and artists are really identical, to depict the world around us with the precision of the scientist and the passion of the mystic."
The Process of Discovery for the Scientist, Artist and Animator
Thomas R. Chech, in his essay, overturning the Dogma: Catalytic RNA discusses the evolution of his creative experience in researching RNA. Elaborating on how the creative process is enacted for the scientist, Chech mentions, that in the sciences he is familiar with (chemistry and biology), problems are rarely solved with a linear set of experiments. Hypotheses are proven to fail and lead scientists to other hypothesis. In Chech's research, the Hypothesis was that RNA is not pure. A protein enzyme should be responsible for replicating the catalyzed RNA. But experiments lead to new discoveries, and it was found that RNA is indeed self-replicating - a breakthrough discovery that has foundations for the origins of life.
Artists, he believes, also follow non-linear paths in their creative workflows. For example, Pollock tried to become a proficient draftsman as young artist. His attempts to created representational and symbolic paintings inspired by Diego Rivera and Picasso were often not well received. His action paintings, which made him famous, happened by accident. In preparations to paint a mural, several drips of paint fell to floor, and Pollock's love of the resulting drippy design evolved into one of the most influential periods in Modern American Art.
Both of these processes of discovery exemplify what Chech calls "progress that is not linear with time." He discusses how both artists and scientists have periods of belaboring frustration (i.e. struggling with draftsmanship of reoccurring failing hypothesis) and periods of rapid insight (i.e. is self replicating and the drips are aesthetically pleasing).
On a personal, as an animator, I can relate to Chech's notion that progress is not linear with time. Most of us go about our work in a very linear way. First we come up with a story, then we write the script, then visual development, then the story board, then the animatic, then the casting, then the ADR session, then animation which replaces the still images in the animatic, then post-production, etc. But when the animation begins, I often find myself revisiting the story and making changes. This can be especially true for areas of "dynamic animation." For example, two characters are fighting on the edge of the cliff, in the script there is heavy dialog explaining a crucial part of the story. But the animation must be dynamic and quick. It must be suspenseful and gripping. At this stage the dialog has to be cut, maybe edited. What, I have to do another ADR session and call back the actor?! Oh dear. But wait. I can cut the dialog out entirely. The scene is more suspenseful, even better. Egads! What a great discovery.
works cited:
Overturing the Dogma: Catalytic RNA, Thomas R. Cech
from The Origins of Creativity, Edited by Karl. H. Pfenninger
Artists, he believes, also follow non-linear paths in their creative workflows. For example, Pollock tried to become a proficient draftsman as young artist. His attempts to created representational and symbolic paintings inspired by Diego Rivera and Picasso were often not well received. His action paintings, which made him famous, happened by accident. In preparations to paint a mural, several drips of paint fell to floor, and Pollock's love of the resulting drippy design evolved into one of the most influential periods in Modern American Art.
Both of these processes of discovery exemplify what Chech calls "progress that is not linear with time." He discusses how both artists and scientists have periods of belaboring frustration (i.e. struggling with draftsmanship of reoccurring failing hypothesis) and periods of rapid insight (i.e. is self replicating and the drips are aesthetically pleasing).
On a personal, as an animator, I can relate to Chech's notion that progress is not linear with time. Most of us go about our work in a very linear way. First we come up with a story, then we write the script, then visual development, then the story board, then the animatic, then the casting, then the ADR session, then animation which replaces the still images in the animatic, then post-production, etc. But when the animation begins, I often find myself revisiting the story and making changes. This can be especially true for areas of "dynamic animation." For example, two characters are fighting on the edge of the cliff, in the script there is heavy dialog explaining a crucial part of the story. But the animation must be dynamic and quick. It must be suspenseful and gripping. At this stage the dialog has to be cut, maybe edited. What, I have to do another ADR session and call back the actor?! Oh dear. But wait. I can cut the dialog out entirely. The scene is more suspenseful, even better. Egads! What a great discovery.
works cited:
Overturing the Dogma: Catalytic RNA, Thomas R. Cech
from The Origins of Creativity, Edited by Karl. H. Pfenninger
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Religion and Science: Can We Get Along?
Usually when anyone surveys the news about the conflict between science and religion, the two issues are considered to be polar opposites. Despite the fact that there is a great historical precedent of strongly religious scientists (and, gasp, Artists!) that have contributed greatly to mankind, today's world believes that religion and science are oil and water. They do not mix (except in salad) and that if those religious scientists had been alive today, they would have found either religion outdated or science dogmatic.
Dr. Francis Collins is both a scientist and a believer in religion, specifically Christianity. In this article, he describes how he was able to unite the two seemingly polar opposites. Continues the debate between science and religion and whether they can co-exist. Not only is he both, he is one of the closest scientists at the crux of many of science and religions latest scrap, evolution. He is the director of the Human Genome Project, which was formed to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Dr. Francis Collins is both a scientist and a believer in religion, specifically Christianity. In this article, he describes how he was able to unite the two seemingly polar opposites. Continues the debate between science and religion and whether they can co-exist. Not only is he both, he is one of the closest scientists at the crux of many of science and religions latest scrap, evolution. He is the director of the Human Genome Project, which was formed to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
This world is Flat
Flat Earth Society
So you believe in a spherical earth? Not so, says the Flat Earth Society who follow the Flat Earth hypothesis. The contemporary flat earth movement originated with an English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham. The Flat Earth Society believes that the moon landings were faked and there is no evidence to support a spherical based earth. Test for yourself how the widely discredited hypothesis holds up.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
jake
So you believe in a spherical earth? Not so, says the Flat Earth Society who follow the Flat Earth hypothesis. The contemporary flat earth movement originated with an English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham. The Flat Earth Society believes that the moon landings were faked and there is no evidence to support a spherical based earth. Test for yourself how the widely discredited hypothesis holds up.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
jake
Judy D. Lemus
Judy D. Lemus,Research Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, is also the Marine Advisory Program Leader for USC Sea Grant where she guides interpretation and technology-transfer of marine science research. She completed both her BS and MS degrees in Biology at the University of California-Los Angeles and received her PhD in Biology from the University of Southern California. Her Creative works include Ocean Science Animations, Animations created through collaboration with Division of Animation and Digital Arts to help teach public audiences about ocean science concepts and research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)