ART in SCIENCE

[playground]

I think as an artist, there is always something in the thing evolved in you - you can see a blink of it in your art, and there are reason why you choose a topic, or paint something the way you do - of course there can now be made a big analysis on that - but well nobody knows you that much as you do.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think as an artist, there is always something in the thing evolved in you - you can see a blink of it in your art, and there are reason why you choose a topic, or paint something the way you do - of course there can now be made a big analysis on that - but well nobody knows you that much as you do.

A very perceptive comment

 

I intend to paint my visit to Torquay to see the Yacht Race , using this image . What is your ' take ' on why I have picked this image to paint ?

 

 

Mike

Edited June 30, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have tried composing some wire art , in the last few weeks .

Here are the attempts to produce satisfying shapes out of short lengths of copper wire.

 

 

Each individual piece was exploring shapes that gave a satisfying feeling.

 

The curious spin off . Which I would seek an explanation for , is :-

 

I felt the most immense feeling of peace and tranquility , almost therapeutic , during the bending and at the completion of each shape.

 

What was happening to me during this time ?

 

Mike

Edited July 17, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

To the horror of many artists ' I imagine ' . There is science behind many of the images, which appear beautiful and random .

We paint these countryside images with flair and skill to invoke the composition we feel is our capture of a ' magic moment '

I have been observing clouds recently and notice something I had not realised before.

 

The clouds are emanating from a 'vanishing point ' in perspective as much as the houses emanate from their vanishing point in the far distance. It is not as obvious as houses as there are large ' Gaps' which hide the similar emanation from a vanishing point as the houses.

 

Note the following illustration.

 

Initial observation of cloud formation ( could look random ) :-

 

Now re-observe with vanishing point assumed far distance 200 ft up . Note the perspective lines emanating left and right from our Observer position from vanishing point to 100- 200 ft over our heads .:-

 

 

Now examine this new photo , taken looking out of a bus window , clouds look random yet, your observed vanishing point is at the part of the lamp post , behind the bush , approximately . Note the two ' apparent ' directions of movement of the clouds . This is a perspective illusion !

 

 

It's obvious , if you think about it! The clouds at the horizon ( vanishing point ) BUT Appear, almost touching ( yet say 100 feet apart) . Near to you , nearly above your head, where the clouds are seen as actual nearby (100 feet apart ) without much change in size ( due to perspective ) .

. Now see the perspective , giving the appearance the clouds are moving in different directions .

 

Mike

Edited August 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This could be giving us ( personally ) a new take, an how we see and view clouds . However , this is NOT how the clouds ' are ' or indeed how the clouds ' - Actually - Move ' .

 

It is our , or the way things happen , perception of PERSPECTIVE We easily recognise this with things like houses , fields , people etc , but because clouds are very random anyway , we perhaps do not notice this " Perspective in the Sky " .

---------------------- ------------

The clouds are arranged in perspective from our unique viewing point, ' upwards ' . Though not in reality. I would propose! Whether this has been stated before , I am not sure .

---------------------- ------------

 

I discussed this with a fellow artist yesterday over a coffee and he 'hit the roof ' . " absolute poppycock , pure serendipity " , caused quite a poetic disturbance in the local city , as cafe dwellers, heard our argument , and there was a lot of demonstrative, getting up , pointing , looking up in the sky , sitting down , coffee cups flying , and walking off in disgust.

 

It was a wonder with all the getting up and gesturing in the sky , neither of us or both of us , did not end up in the adjacent canal a few feet away , which was the venue of the cafe ! As this was the quiet ( not now ) rendezvous of our initial afternoon discussion , after a pleasant painting session .

 

Mike

Edited August 13, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How about this :

 

 

 

.

 

Minute clouds on the horizon , become steadily bigger as they get nearer. The whole thing spreads out like a fan .

 

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Incorporated perspective in clouds in this painting today .

 

 

Mike

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

There is something compositionally , very satisfying about this picture .

 

I often find this with ships .

 

 

Whether it is the intrigue, as to what is going on ' off picture to the left ?

 

Sunlight seems to be ,lighting from the left horizon . Two boats are steaming hard to the left , the third seems to be turning that way !

 

Maybe it is a case of what ' is not shown ' , rather than what ' is shown ' that gets your imagination going

 

.? I suppose , there is not the detail ' in ' the picture to keep one interested and entertained. But rather there is a 'host ' of imagination to keep one going , off picture to the left .

 

Mike

Edited August 27, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Lyudmilascience]

I am actually an artist that is also interested in science, I am specifically interested in medical illustration, currently i go to the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. I am hoping to get a masters at some point in either chemistry,medical illustration scientific illustration or something else related to science. I wish it was easier to find out the career I really want. I feel like I should ave started with a science degree. I really like the art on this scite http://streetanatomy.com/ I like to draw different kind of medical diagrams, of the heat thoracic cavity cranium and others.

[puppypower]

Art has many different media besides visual. Graphs could be called a form of visual science art. Art is also not limited by clarity, for example there is impressionist and abstract art. Math can also be used as a medium. Computer game engines use math to extend the laws of physics in abstract ways; infinite lives. The artist does not always paint reality as it is, but can also paint reality in ways in might be; applied science. Art is not limited to the status quo but benefits by being unique.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Here, is a quick sketch I did of the ' Palio in Siena' Italy , yesterday . No horse race unfortunately .

 

The owner of the restaurant Guidorrico , while eating Pici spaghetti , said if I send a copy painted to him I can eat and drink for nothing . That was a good deal

 

Mike

 

.

 

See Wikipedia link to palio Siena :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palio_di_Siena

Edited September 25, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The Palio Di Siena .

 

The stimulation for Art in Italy is really ,one of the best in the world !

 

.

 

You could ask ' What does this have to do with Science? '

 

Certainly in Italy, as in many countries , ' Science and Art ' have often been ' Bedfellows ' !

 

Think of Lianado da Vinchi, Galileo , etc

 

It may be , that often scientists feel the need to use visualisation , as an essential aid in explaining Nature .

After all , mainly all , Human scientists , 'Are' visual creatures , having as one of its main brain stimulation the ' eyes ' . followed by some amazing brain function , ' Visualisation in picture form ' .

 

Mike

Edited September 30, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How about this :

.image.jpg

Minute clouds on the horizon , become steadily bigger as they get nearer. The whole thing spreads out like a fan .

Mike

Today ,I flew back from Italy .

 

During my journey I noticed , that the UNDERSIDE of the main clouds , as illustrated in this quoted post , were ALL level . All at identicle levels ( underside ) .

 

On the this return flight , I approached the PILOT of the aircraft , after we had landed in England. Confirmed this phenomenon , suggesting the inversions have something to do with this phenomenon. Although not certain of today's flight , suggested the hight to be around 4000- 5000 feet . As you ascend in the aircraft the point of entry upwards into this first cloud layer , gives a phenomenal sight , as if you were looking on the underside of a huge craft , spreading to the horizon.

 

When seen from the ground level , this phenomenon is pretty completely missing . The random effect seems to take precedence.

 

However , it now becomes perfectly clear WHY the perspective 'V' is always present. As previously stated .

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You can see on the first few posts on page 9 of this thread , the formation of the V's .

 

Now with the understanding of the ' dead flat ' underside of the cloud layer . If becomes more logical that we would get a perspective ' V' forming .

 

If we consider a receding strait ,level , road with houses , either side of the road . The tops of the houses seem touching in the far distance , whereas the roof tops on opposite sides of the road , get higher and further apart . Forming a 'V' in the sky .

 

So it is that the clouds too form such a perspective 'V' wherever or whichever direction you look . Why this is not obviously perceived, is that the clouds are spurodic in both distance and size, so the 'V' is often nearly lost . But it is there, if you look with an open mind!

 

 

 

 

Ps picture just taken sitting by a stream looking straight forward ! That's not serendipity! That's Science !

 

 

Mike

Edited October 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There was a time when I looked at clouds ' APPARENTLY ' coming towards me 'ish . Sort of glancing off slightly to the side .

Only recently I started to take more careful note. They always tended to be glancing off to the side . Odd. Then under careful examination over a short period of time , as I assert aimed the actual direction of movement . They were in fact going a completely different direction .

 

Conclusion ! The clouds only APPEAR to be moving toward me and separating. In fact suddenly I saw! Whichever way I face , they all appear to be doing this splitting into a sort of 'V' .

 

Conclusion ! Perspective works whichever of 360 degrees one observes.

 

What confuses the issue is that the clouds are not always evenly spaced or sized. If you take that into account .

The ' V ' of perspective shows through .

 

Q.E.D. I think

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

P.S.

 

The low clouds in question are normally CUMULOUS clouds . The average height as per Wikipedia is approx 3,500 feet .

 

 

See Wikipedia for more information on CUMULOUS clouds :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_cloud

 

Clearly showing the Perspective Effect ( V ) in the sky .

 

( as per looking down a long street of shops on both sides of the road , running away into the distance )

 

Mike

Edited October 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Cuba]

 

As per my previous post, my position is that illustrations are not necessarily art.

This might be about a year late, but reading this I had to respond. As an artist, and a philospher, illistration is a considered art. The defining factor is in how they are displayed. Show an illistration on a slide in a classroom along with a lecture and most viewers will not consider it as art. Put that same illistration in a gallery and it is almost always considered to be art.

 

So I suppose I am supporting your argument in a way, however I am demostrating that with a different perspective illistration can always be considered art. So I guess what I am getting at is that your statement is not a logical argument as it largly has to do with opinion.

 

Soo farther on down the rabbit hole you could make an argument that art has no place in science as its value is placed almost solely on opinion. Yet an image of the sun rising over the horizon from orbit is an image often displayed in galleries world wide, how is that not a documentation of the scientific feats of mankind and the physics of nature?

[swansont]

This might be about a year late, but reading this I had to respond. As an artist, and a philospher, illistration is a considered art. The defining factor is in how they are displayed. Show an illistration on a slide in a classroom along with a lecture and most viewers will not consider it as art. Put that same illistration in a gallery and it is almost always considered to be art.

 

So I suppose I am supporting your argument in a way, however I am demostrating that with a different perspective illistration can always be considered art. So I guess what I am getting at is that your statement is not a logical argument as it largly has to do with opinion.

Yes, it's opinion,(which you apparently share) from the perspective of someone who has been paid for cartoons that were published. I don't consider my cartoons to be art. I don't generally consider technical drawings to be art, even though there can be a range of aesthetic value to them.

 

Soo farther on down the rabbit hole you could make an argument that art has no place in science as its value is placed almost solely on opinion. Yet an image of the sun rising over the horizon from orbit is an image often displayed in galleries world wide, how is that not a documentation of the scientific feats of mankind and the physics of nature?

One does not place an image in a gallery to convey scientific information to other scientists, or even to a lay audience AFAICT, which was the context of my commentary. What scientific information is contained and conveyed in the image you describe?

[Cuba]

Yes, it's opinion,(which you apparently share) from the perspective of someone who has been paid for cartoons that were published. I don't consider my cartoons to be art. I don't generally consider technical drawings to be art, even though there can be a range of aesthetic value to them.

 

One does not place an image in a gallery to convey scientific information to other scientists, or even to a lay audience AFAICT, which was the context of my commentary. What scientific information is contained and conveyed in the image you describe?

Is not the statement that the world is round still a theory? It was last I checked. Yes its an accepted theory but theories still need supporting arguments and what better an argument than a photograph of a round earth in front of a round sun from an elliptical orbit? People (the masses) believe what they see.

 

You say you draw cartoons/technical drawings (which definitively tells me you are more scientist than artist...no offence intended) to what purpose do you create them for? To teach. You are demonstrating a theory, or hypothesis, or whatever threw visual imagery. So that someone who might not understand the numbers can understand what you are trying to describe. The cartoon draws them in and they can imagine something science has discovered.

 

Back to the orbital photograph, such a thing is without a doubt a work of art to society at large, and to many people it might be the only argument for the theory of a round world that they ever consider. Seeing is not just believing, it also can be a path to understanding.

[swansont]

Is not the statement that the world is round still a theory? It was last I checked. Yes its an accepted theory but theories still need supporting arguments and what better an argument than a photograph of a round earth in front of a round sun from an elliptical orbit? People (the masses) believe what they see.

 

You say you draw cartoons/technical drawings (which definitively tells me you are more scientist than artist...no offence intended) to what purpose do you create them for? To teach. You are demonstrating a theory, or hypothesis, or whatever threw visual imagery. So that someone who might not understand the numbers can understand what you are trying to describe. The cartoon draws them in and they can imagine something science has discovered.

 

When I draw a cartoon it's to tell a joke of some sort. If they person looking at it doesn't know the science behind it, then they probably aren't going to get it from the cartoon. In fact, that's precisely the problem I have had with a lay audience — I have to explain the science before they "get" the cartoon.

 

Back to the orbital photograph, such a thing is without a doubt a work of art to society at large, and to many people it might be the only argument for the theory of a round world that they ever consider. Seeing is not just believing, it also can be a path to understanding.

I'll ask again: what science is contained and conveyed in such a work?

[Cuba]

I'll ask again: what science is contained and conveyed in such a work?

 

Philosophy threw logic. It is a supporting argument to the statement that the world is round, as I mentioned. Unless logic suddenly became something besides science when I was not looking.

[swansont]

 

Philosophy threw logic. It is a supporting argument to the statement that the world is round, as I mentioned. Unless logic suddenly became something besides science when I was not looking.

 

Logic is logic.

 

A round earth is not a scientific concept (or a theory), it's simply a fact, and science is more than just a bunch of facts. It doesn't convey that the earth is round like a ball, it could also be construed as round like a pancake, with no depth. And I don't get at all how this is supposed to convey an elliptical orbit. (This also ignores the people who will simply scream "hoax!" but that's really another issue) The image without context does a poor job of conveying much science at all. It's certainly not worth a thousand words, when you could just say, "The earth is spherical"

 

In rereading the posts from a year ago, though, I was making the point in the other direction, as was the original discussion in the thread. The question is not is there science contained in art (yes, perhaps some) but do scientists use art to convey science. An art gallery is not run by scientists. I maintain that a technical drawing is not art. What is being conveyed by scientists is not subjective. If you want to show someone a circle for whatever reason, you need to draw a circle.

 

I kinda lost interest when Mike put forth the conjecture that, basically, everything is art ("ART is ART even if its a sheep pickled in formaldehyde"). A parallel to the idea that a theory that excludes nothing is worthless (certainly less than a dime a dozen from crackpots)

[Cuba]

 

Logic is logic.

 

A round earth is not a scientific concept (or a theory), it's simply a fact, and science is more than just a bunch of facts. It doesn't convey that the earth is round like a ball, it could also be construed as round like a pancake, with no depth. And I don't get at all how this is supposed to convey an elliptical orbit. (This also ignores the people who will simply scream "hoax!" but that's really another issue) The image without context does a poor job of conveying much science at all. It's certainly not worth a thousand words, when you could just say, "The earth is spherical"

 

In rereading the posts from a year ago, though, I was making the point in the other direction, as was the original discussion in the thread. The question is not is there science contained in art (yes, perhaps some) but do scientists use art to convey science. An art gallery is not run by scientists. I maintain that a technical drawing is not art. What is being conveyed by scientists is not subjective. If you want to show someone a circle for whatever reason, you need to draw a circle.

 

I kinda lost interest when Mike put forth the conjecture that, basically, everything is art ("ART is ART even if its a sheep pickled in formaldehyde"). A parallel to the idea that a theory that excludes nothing is worthless (certainly less than a dime a dozen from crackpots)

 

See and you had to go and ruin it, I was totally gonna use a picture is worth a thousand words saying. Touche.

 

When I mentioned the orbit bit I was reffering to what could be assumed from the work, like you said you could assume the earth is simply a two demensional circle from a photograph, but its those assumptions brought on by observations that I think conveys science. It gets people thinking, it can get them to think differently. So beyond being a peice of evidence in a logical argument (albeit a faulty one) it can also be considered to effect psycology.

 

Do you imply that logic is not a science? That would suggest to me that you think psycology is not a science either.

 

I agree when you say not everything is art... to a point. As all art is simply considered art, like I explained in my first post. Therefore depending on your disposition, beleifs, and various opinions you could claim that everything is art or nothing is art, and everything in-between. It is defined by your own perception. So the real answer when asking if something is art or not is simply "possibly." Same could be said, however unlikely it might be, that there is a possibilty our perception is tricking us into thinking the earth is round when it is in fact a 2D circle. Therefore it is still a theory, even if it is accepted fact it cannot be considered "true."

 

Tell me, what does the color green look like to you?

[swansont]

 

Do you imply that logic is not a science?

 

Logic is a subset of philosophy, but is not science. Different branch.

[Cuba]

 

Logic is a subset of philosophy, but is not science. Different branch.

Not addressing the rest of my post because you agree, or? And to me Logic has an awfully profound influence on science to not at least be considered a major contributor.