The most exciting effort along those lines that I know of is provided by Edge. A recent event involving science and art is described here. Also recently, the NY Times reported on an educational program at Binghamton University emphasizing science-art interactions.

I think the problem of separation has gotten worse and better since Snow’s time. Worse because of increasing specialization and difficulty communicating even within a single discipline. Better because even “hard” sciences are becoming capable of addressing questions about what distinguishes us as humans and what goes on in our minds, i.e. they’re becoming concerned with the same subjects as the arts and humanities, rather than seemingly totally different subjects.

I don’t remember from my first reading whether he does more than name the problem. It seems only to have gotten worser and worser since the book came out and I wondered if there’s a way to address it with the hope/intention of alleviating it. (Symposium, anyone?)

I have a vague recollection of reading about an annual dinner that a foundation hosts that brings its grant recipients together and how, once intial shyness of various stripes is alleviated, conversation rockets around the representatives of the various disciplines.

For example, riffing on the Bioglyphs image in the post (unfortunately, I’ve never seen or heard more of the project than is on that web site): The patterns of the luminescent bacterial colonies remind me of Australian aboriginal dot paintings (see above), which are quite varied but often have concentric patterns like the ones shown. This in turn reminds me of patterns produced by the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (see below) if properly set up; these are self-generated (i.e. one starts from uniformity) spatial expressions of an oscillation in time that is mathematically analogous to the circadian rhythms that are the pacemakers of many creatures lives (if you stir the solution to enforce spatial uniformity, you get changing colors over time, see this video). This represents a kind of spontaneous ordering of randomness in the universe, but it occurs with a certain unpredictability and sensitivity to initial conditions, i.e. chaos. Chaos and order have been fundamental concepts in art and science since forever, and tie into making sense of the world by walking through it and marking it, singing it… A scientist or two who knew more about the chemistry and biology (and had a lot of time to experiment) could probably help an artist figure out how to create a living, breathing, pattern-forming, beautiful manifestation of some mix of all these ideas that would have to be considered an amazing work of art.

Birgit mentioned the entrancing fMRI brain images; I would like to see what a performance/video artist, working, say, with a neuroscientist and a computer graphics whiz, could come up with using a device like this headset to show representations of their mental state while engaged in some kind of performance activity. Even monkeys can use brain prosthetics to manipulate their environment, how much more can we do?

I could go on indefinitely, but I hope this illustrates the potential I’m thinking of. Others must be as well.

For the life of me I can’t seem to find any mutually enhancing connection between art and science.

June said a lot in her comment. If I understand correctly, she allows for “art” and “science” to be in the same place at once, like a nice photograph, but they need not to be touching each other. The science might bring the subject matter and the art its modes of presentation, but these things are, perchance, placed on a table between them. An equation can be drawn on the board with bad chalk and a rude hand, and, as long as it is legible, nothing is lost. Script the equation on vellum with a deft hand and nothing is gained.

Didn’t we discuss the use of brain imaging pictures as a motif for painting and photography in one of Richard Rothstein’s posts?

In a way, I am collaborating with my physical therapist, trainer and acupuncturist to learn and draw functional anatomy and energy flow in the movement of children.

The most frequent (and alas banal) interaction of science and art now seems to revolve around two areas — microscopic views of material turned into abstract art and computer technology (mother boards and strenuously photoshopped images) also made “abstract.” Oh, and in fiber arts, there can also be found mathematical variations — quilt blocks, for example, lend themselves to this kind of mathematical exploration.

I don’t find these abstractions very compelling, in part perhaps because I personally can’t find any specific “hooks.” If I were a scientist, perhaps I would have a more visceral reaction.

The topic is fascinating, though, and as I think about it, I realize that the “skewed” paintings of Rackstraw Downes and contemporary photographers, such as appeared in Birgit’s post just prior to this one, depict my favorite intersection of science and art. Of course, I didn’t know about the science until I read the article in the Times that you cited in the Downe’s comment section.

So many things to think about, in so many ways!