tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098887240471953238.post1327938806166571497..comments2024-03-20T11:47:46.829-06:00Comments on Once upon a transdimensional day...: Art & Science... featuring the work of Renata SpiazziDia Sobin (Araqinta)http://www.blogger.com/profile/03398194511342193439noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098887240471953238.post-4345449040837127162012-04-29T11:22:57.588-06:002012-04-29T11:22:57.588-06:00Thanks, Bob, but I didn't elucidate very much ...Thanks, Bob, but I didn't elucidate very much in the post... I think Spiazzi's images were the real stars of the show.<br /><br />Yes, but when you really think about it, isn't Bernard's quote rather idealistic in scope... and somewhat simplistic? Because, let's face it, both artists and scientists are ego-driven to some degree.. "I" and "we" are relative terms... while, at the same time, the spirit of discovery and the desire to uncover life's mysteries are elements and qualities that are shared by both artists, scientists, creatives in general, and those in other fields and walks of life. In other words, "we" and "I" elements are present in both scientific and artistic inquiry.<br /><br />Scientific illustration is a good point... especially in the past, when many artists were also naturalists, observing nature in minute detail and recording what they saw well before the camera became the tool of the trade.<br /><br />Then again, If you remember from my "Language of Form" posts, there were scientists like D.W. Thompson who considered organic form to be a "diagram of forces", and I think anyone working with patterns and forms understands that statement both ultimately and intimately. But, a hundred years ago, there weren't such rigid lines drawn between art, science and religion, and perhaps those boundaries are beginning to dissolve again in some minds, leading to a more holistic understanding... a truly "unified field". ;-)<br /><br /><br />Note to Noiln: Thanks for your input... but the computer is just a machine... the mind of the operator is the real "intangible", no? ;-)Dia Sobin (Araqinta)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03398194511342193439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098887240471953238.post-65441995540766612402012-04-28T21:32:30.733-06:002012-04-28T21:32:30.733-06:00A most intriguing post, Dia. And YES! Art and sci...A most intriguing post, Dia. And YES! Art and science are much akin although different in approach. Science seeks to understand the world via replicable data whilst the other explores the world in a singular voice.<br /><br />As Claude Bernard, a French physician, once is reputed to have said, "Art is I; science is We,".<br /><br />Consensus and self can and should meet at an intersecting point and allow the two disciplines to merge in something that is more than either of the two can offer on their own.<br /><br />Science and art have often been collaborators - consider scientific illustration - rather than sworn enemies. I think the separation has been largely in the mind of the public-at-large. And too - the postmodern movement has certainly redefined art to a level that was not previously considered.<br /><br />Excellent post.BG Dodsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06781353558372397870noreply@blogger.com