Maya Lin from Systematic Landscapes (photo: arcspace)

I recently came across an amazing argument for increased arts funding, especially in this economic crisis. Actually, the thrust of the argument—one I believe in—is not so amazing, though it may often be neglected. But some of the numbers cited in support truly are. The claim, by Michele and Robert Root-Bernstein, is that arts education is an important factor in developing creativity and innovation, traits that seem more essential than ever at a time when the status quo has broken down. The examples leading off their article are interesting, but not in themselves compelling to me. The astounding part (which also struck the Artful Manager, where I first learned of this) is the following:

We’ve just published a study that shows that almost all Nobel laureates in the sciences actively engage in arts as adults. They are twenty-five times as likely as the average scientist to sing, dance, or act; seventeen times as likely to be a visual artist; twelve times more likely to write poetry and literature; eight times more likely to do woodworking or some other craft; four times as likely to be a musician; and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect their art to their scientific ability with some riff on Nobel prizewinning physicist Max Planck words: “The creative scientist needs an artistic imagination.”

I’m naturally led to wonder if a similar statement is true for artists. In my personal experience with artists, I keep being surprised at encountering greater interest in science than I expected. So it’s time to go beyond personal anecdote with a fully scientific poll! I’m assuming anyone reading this has a strong interest in art, so my poll question concerns engagement in science. You’re free to define for yourselves whether your interest is strong, moderate, or weak. I would consider that anyone who often reads science-related articles, or even seeks them out, demonstrates strong interest. Please indicate below where you stand:

The great Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci still held on to this ancient belief that the senso commune (sense of community), phantasy and imagination originated in the anterior ventricle; that the middle ventricle served cognition; and that memory was contained in the posterior ventricle.

We owe it to Andreas Vesalius to dispute the theory that higher brain function resides in the ventricles. Vesalius was headed for Art school but then, apparently, yielding to family pressure, he entered Med school. Breaking with the medieval tradition of bowing to Galen’s authority, Vesalius believed in hands-on direct observation. He carried on his own dissection on humans and published his findings in a textbook ‘humani corporis fabrica’.

Supposedly, the popularity of the ventricle theory had to do with the following reasoning: Because the soul resides in the head and the soul is incorporeal, therefore, its locus has to be in the brain cavities filled with fluid rather than in the surrounding brain tissue (solid and eatable). Of course, this thinking mixes up Mind and Soul.

A couple of centuries later, dissatisfied with purely biological explanations, Rene Descartes, the great mathematician, articulates the theory of dualism, mind – body dichotomy. He distinguished between the ‘brain’ and the ‘mind’, arguing that the brain organizes animal behavior while the mind contains a person’s thoughts, desires, soul.

copied from the web .

This belief in mind-body dichotomy persists into the present. A couple of years ago, I quit the class of a local Yoga teacher, Ruth Fisk, a disciple of the famous Iyengar, when she disturbed my ‘Peace of Mind’ voicing that the BRAIN is there to remember telephone numbers while the MIND…..

I don’t pretend to know any answers to these issues.

However, I do believe in evolution. While Descartes argued that animals were just machines, I embrace Darwin’s thoughts, 1872, on the expression of Emotions in Man and Animals.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Michaela Frühwirth, Obstruction_1, detail

For me the loveliest find was the work of Michaela Frühwirth, reminiscent of the detailed drawings of Vija Celmins, though abstract in nature. If we relate it to the topic at hand, the picture here could be seen as a jumbled ice field or a micrograph of dislocation lines in an ice crystal. Other artists represent not only from the usual visual arts, but dance, music, jewelry design, writing, architecture, and even cooking.

With roughly 50 contributors, this collection is not surprisingly uneven. That goes for the editors, as well, who have done interesting things with an interesting concept, but also write things like:

So…
This book is a map
This book is not a map
This is a book about ice
This is not a book about ice
…

And they seem to have missed the whole point of broader thinking when they write in the introduction that “…ice is a substance that holds no fossils.” Yes, I know what they mean, but couldn’t they have thought in terms of of a million years of fossil air telling about our past climate, of ice cap troves of lunar and Martian meteorites, of frozen structural patterns that record the passages of a glacial river, as sinuous as any belly dancer?

Perhaps the thing I missed most was any substantive interactions or collaborations between scientists and artists. I believe the foundation sponsors meetings and exhibits where such discussions could take place. The book is apparently meant as an inspiration for such cross-pollination, but it would be nice to have some examples for those who can’t attend any events.

So do you have any good examples of art and science interacting? Mine is Bioglyphs: