ART in SCIENCE

[studiot]

 

Here's the thing: would the aesthetic addition to a bridge design be allowed to compromise the specs from the engineers?

 

 

Yes, I've seen that happen.

 

The pig troughs (sorry parapet visual enhancement panels) on the Obridge Viaduct.

[Acme]

[Acme]What scientific concept is it [the art] meant to portray?

Well, I won't tell you. Not right away at any rate. I'll give a hint while we all enjoy gazing at it.

Hint: It preceded its algebraic representation.

[swansont]

Well, I won't tell you. Not right away at any rate. I'll give a hint while we all enjoy gazing at it.

Hint: It preceded its algebraic representation.

 

Doesn't that mean it has failed in communicating?

[michel123456]

 

Yes, I've seen that happen.

 

The pig troughs (sorry parapet visual enhancement panels) on the Obridge Viaduct.

Do you have a link please?

[studiot]

I don't think the story will be on the net, but here is something other than traffic news about it.

Unfortunately it demonstrates all too well that you should not believe all you find on the net.

This links say 'built in the 1990s'

But my CV tells me that I was the senior engineer constructing the project from 1979 - 1981.

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Obridge_Viaduct

[Acme]

[Acme]Doesn't that mean it has failed in communicating?

Scientifically speaking, only for you and only for now. Artistically speaking, you tell me.

 

I ask rhetorically, "how long did it take to translate written Mayan?" Was written Mayan any less artistic or any less a communication before modern folk deciphered it? [Note that my drawing is not Mayan.]

 

Another hint: Knowing something of their work, I expect the following gentlemen would have successfully received my scientific communication: Fermat, Mersenne, Lagrange, Gauss, or Cauchy. Alas we fo shizzle can't know their artistic impression of it on account of them still being dead and all.

 

So. Mike? Et al? Care to take a shot at the science of my image? The art? Come on; humor an old man.

[arc]

 

Yes, I've seen that happen.

 

The pig troughs (sorry parapet visual enhancement panels) on the Obridge Viaduct.

 

Were those hung under the outside edge of the deck adjacent the girders. To fatten it up, so to speak, to make it look more stout, and in a ironic twist, appear safer?

[Bill Angel]

Some scientists have an interest in ART and the use of ART in conveying scientific ideas that are otherwise difficult to express in other ways . This thread is started to act as a vehicle for such participation.

One area of science that has yet to be mentioned in the thread is the medical sciences. For example here is an example of art being used to illustrate the concept of clinical depression:

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

ACME ASKED

:-

What scientific concept is it meant to portray?

 

 

?....I drew this by hand with a drafting machine, then scanned it and added some digital artifications. It is both pleasing to the eye as I intended it and rigorously mathematically unambiguous and informative as I intended it. Agon indeed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The magnetic field lines at the entrance to a worm hole ? Somehow quantised ?

 

Do I get a prize ?

 

 

Reply to Swansont Early Post #2

 

Mike Smith Cosmos, on 29 Mar 2014 - 2:01 PM, said:

and the use of ART in conveying scientific ideas that are otherwise difficult to express in other ways .

Swansont said in reply :-

Would that be science communication, i.e. with a non-science audience? Or do you have some examples of scientists using art* to communicate with other scientists?

*in a non-trivial fashion. Pictures or technical drawings are not really art, as such.

 

Both and All.

 

Here is a science to science picture tar Is discussing with Janus in maths

 

Link : -

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82363-dividing-a-sphere-into-twelve-identical-shapes/?p=798031

Edited March 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

One area of science that has yet to be mentioned in the thread is the medical sciences. For example here is an example of art being used to illustrate the concept of clinical depression:

 

 

In what medical journal does this picture appear?

[Acme]

ACME SWANSONT ASKED

:-

What scientific concept is it [Acme's drawing] meant to portray?

 

The magnetic field lines at the entrance to a worm hole ? Somehow quantised ?

 

Do I get a prize ?

Not magnetic field lines, but you get a prize anyway. Just pay $83 US dollars shipping and handling & the prize will be on its way to you.

 

I'm going to leave what my drawing is as a mystery a bit longer, but here's another clue. Hint: It is a special case of a general class. If it's not clear by my earlier hints, it's a mathematical principle. I dearly hope we aren't going to go off-topic here and argue that math is not science as that is an equine of a different hue.

 

Anyway, I am well convinced that nothing we post is going to sway Swan. His mind is made up and that's that. No shafts off my plumage.

 

Back on magnetic lines though, as it brought to mind Hofstadter's butterfly. Just recently confirmed by observation, it flutters between art and science with abandon.

 

source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter_butterfly

In physics, Hofstadter's butterfly is a mathematical object describing the theorised behaviour of electrons in a magnetic field. It was discovered by Douglas Hofstadter in 1976, who later abandoned physics research and became notable as a computer scientist and author. It takes its name from its visual resemblance to a butterfly. It is a fractal structure and as such it shows self-similarity, meaning that small fragments of the structure contain a (distorted) copy of the entire structure. It is one of the rare fractal structures discovered in physics, along with KAM tori.

 

To test whether Hofstadter's butterfly describes real electron behaviour requires accurate measurements. Such were not possible when he wrote his paper. However, more recent experimental research has confirmed the characteristic butterfly shape.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Acme

[swansont]

 

Anyway, I am well convinced that nothing we post is going to sway Swan. His mind is made up and that's that. No shafts off my plumage.

 

 

I will be swayed by evidence, but thus far the examples are not addressing my objections. Everybody seems to be arguing a different point, i.e. that science can't be beautiful or must be lacking in aesthetics. Or maybe I've defined art in a certain way, different than everyone — what makes something count as art? As I said above, I think art has a subjective component which means it connects with individuals in different ways. Which is incompatible with science. Art is also about the expression of the artist, and science doesn't allow individual expression like that.

 

This calls to mind the difference between learning science vs learning about science that happens with pop-sci works. Can art be used to convey scientific concepts? Sure. But it's lacking in real content, just like a pop-sci article or an analogy.

 

Are fractals pretty? Sure. Can an artist express one if s/he doesn't feel like making it self-similar at all scales? No.

[Bill Angel]

 

In what medical journal does this picture appear?

 

I'm having a problem associating that particular image with an article online.

However, I found this online article that contains a conceptually equivalent image

The link is: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185901

And the image is:

[davidivad]

ah!

psychology- the science of sujectivity.

good answer.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

ah!

psychology- the science of sujectivity.

good answer.

 

What are you saying ? Davidivad .

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

 

Considering your points so far Swansont :-

 

Scientists are human.

 

Would that be science communication, i.e. with a non-science audience? Or do you have some examples of scientists using art* to communicate with other scientists?

 

*in a non-trivial fashion. Pictures or technical drawings are not really art, as such.

 

 

I will be swayed by evidence, but thus far the examples are not addressing my objections. Everybody seems to be arguing a different point, i.e. that science can't be beautiful or must be lacking in aesthetics. Or maybe I've defined art in a certain way, different than everyone — what makes something count as art? As I said above, I think art has a subjective component which means it connects with individuals in different ways. Which is incompatible with science. Art is also about the expression of the artist, and science doesn't allow individual expression like that.

 

This calls to mind the difference between learning science vs learning about science that happens with pop-sci works. Can art be used to convey scientific concepts? Sure. But it's lacking in real content, just like a pop-sci article or an analogy.

 

Are fractals pretty? Sure. Can an artist express one if s/he doesn't feel like making it self-similar at all scales? No.

 

 

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

The issue for me is that art is subjective; the artist is trying to convey some concept, and the viewer is free to interpret it. That's not the case in science. What I mean by F=ma had better be what everyone else means by F=ma. Any ambiguity is reconciled by comparing to experiment. There is no room for personal interpretation.

 

 

Doesn't that mean it has failed in communicating?

 

 

Are you free to portray the cracks as you wish, depending on your mood or inspiration? Will it still convey the information properly if that happened?

 

My position is that these constraints are present in science and not present in art. That is not to say that science can't be beautiful, or that science can't be present in art or can't be presented in creative ways.

.Other Swansont comments :-

 

 

Here's the thing: would the aesthetic addition to a bridge design be allowed to compromise the specs from the engineers?

 

O.K.

I am trying to get my head around where you are and what you are saying .

 

I think I am getting a clearer picture .

If i have time to put my reply in here before the EDIT drops out . It is :- ..A.. If not at next available slot :- .B...

 

mike

 

 

.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Prometheus]

There is an powerful depiction of dementia in a series of self-portraits drawn by an artist as their disease progresses. The pictures become more fragmented and show classic signs of neglect in one feild (forget if left or right). Wish i could find it online. Not sure it was is a journal or not - it was at a conference though. But whether or not in a journal is besides the point - it helps doctors/nurses understand what it is like for sufferers.Neither of these would make it scientific though.

 

I think sometimes science and maths allows us access to beauty which we would otherwise not see, but that does not make it art, which is a very human activity of expressing experience.

[Acme]

 

Anyway, I am well convinced that nothing we post is going to sway Swan. His mind is made up and that's that. No shafts off my plumage.

I will be swayed by evidence, but thus far the examples are not addressing my objections. Everybody seems to be arguing a different point, i.e. that science can't be beautiful or must be lacking in aesthetics. Or maybe I've defined art in a certain way, different than everyone what makes something count as art? As I said above, I think art has a subjective component which means it connects with individuals in different ways. Which is incompatible with science. Art is also about the expression of the artist, and science doesn't allow individual expression like that.

 

So science has no subjectivity whatsoever? If that is true, why do not all scientists agree on what some same set/piece of evidence 'means'? Moreover, do you really mean to suggest that science does not connect with individuals differently?

 

This calls to mind the difference between learning science vs learning about science that happens with pop-sci works. Can art be used to convey scientific concepts? Sure. But it's lacking in real content, just like a pop-sci article or an analogy.

My image is full of content. In fact as I implied, it was the principle way to represent the content for at least 1000 years. So that was really another hint and I'll put up another specific example of the general class of content.

I still don't think you will ultimately be swayed, but perhaps others will.

 

Are fractals pretty? Sure. Can an artist express one if s/he doesn't feel like making it self-similar at all scales? No.

I don't think that makes any points for either side of the argument. Context is everything and putting things in a context that separates art from science does nothing to discount where the two do/may join.

 

So, another example from my catalogue.

 

[davidivad]

nothing explains the human condition better than art.

that is because art is an expression in and of itself.

pun intended.

[Acme]

nothing explains the human condition better than art.

that is because art is an expression in and of itself.

pun intended.

Well, you didn't invoke science so no soup for you. Do you have a peer-reviewed study to support your assertion that 'nothing explains the human condition better than art'?

 

Mind you I am only arguing that art may 'be' science and not that it always 'is' science. For example I do not accept that Mike's paintings in the OP are science, but certainly they are art. Any example put forward must be judged on its own merits and not by some broad-brush stroke of generalization.

[davidivad]

there is no doubt that science must be pure.

this literal invokation upon science is what establishes it's power as a tool.

art is an emotional expression that conveys higher thought process whereas science breaks things down to simplest components.

while i feel that science is one of our most valuable assets as a species, we live in a world that contains more than absolutes and numbers.

psycology is a small step into that realm with the same rules as science.

you can write all day about a specific disease all day even explaining the symptoms and still not convey the depths as to the condition of the patient.

i assert that we need clean science where it does work, but not be skeptics of art where it is needed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Harder

 

For me this is the artist. We all without a doubt have seen his work as children in books.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=heinrich+Harder&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2Vk3U5DMJcLcyQHVs4H4Cw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1517&bih=714&dpr=0.9

 

Heinrich Harder – Wikipédia a enciclopédia livre.png

 

I'm fortunate to own a small landscape by him. Sadly though no Cambrian sea life, dinosaurs or even more recent animals, just flora and terra. Oh well, still treasure it.

 

Arc these paintings of historic Animals,

produced by such a venture [ Heinrich Harder (2 June 1858 Putzar – 5 February 1935 Berlin], are a non refutable example of how a very valuable interpretation has been communicated as pure science . When no first hand evidence other than fossils, which are an incomplete picture , are turned by brilliant ART into a valuable contribution to the body of Science .

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[davidivad]

absolutely.

[Acme]

there is no doubt that science must be pure.

...

Well, it may strive to be pure but it is in reality purish. I agree it is powerful, but it's not all-powerful in-and-of itself nor immune to subjectivity.

[davidivad]

i totally agree.

the idea is to be objective as you can, however there comes a time where you are allowed to think about something beyond this point.

after all, it is the tool and we are the masters deciding what to do with it.

in the end we come home from work and cater to a subjective world. the two may not meet eye to eye but they must meet nontheless.

if not then what was it all for.

Edited March 31, 2014 by davidivad

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

O.K. Responding to reviewing Swansonts various comments:-

I am trying to get my head around where you are and what you are saying . I think I am getting a clearer picture .

B. I usually get a picture forming when thinking about issues, which I did in this case which I will come to further on. But almost immediately some words echoed :

„[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.“ Donald Rumsfeld sagte am 12. Februar 2002

 

The Image is :-

A. :-

....................... ........................... ............................... .... ................ ......................... ...................... .....

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

to follow ......................... ........................ ................................ .................................. .......................... . ..................

.mike

Edited March 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos