1

Newton’s apples/ Cezanne ’s apple A study of relationship b/w art and science

Mahbub jokhio

2

F2010-102

Abstract

Nowadays, usually artists project themselves

into social circles or the social structures,

but the method they apply is as much

scientific as science itself, because every

project undertaken by artist in the name of

art essentially has a scientific approach or

one can say it is like an experiment a

scientist conducts, with the resultant

unknown, the artist searches or researches to

make a way through the project and what he

comes up with is mostly a resultant which

could have any direction. Creativity on the

other hand is manifested in two major fields:

3

Art and Science. These two different fields

which share some common goals have lot of

similarities and differences at the same

time, in this paper some of the questions

related to this problem will be answered that

whether the artist and scientist share the

same working mind conditionings or their

thought process have differences and do their

share some very thought tools of mind.

A creation happens two times, first in the mind and secondly

in the outer (physical) world so is with emotions and feelings.

Creativity like emotions and feelings is the defining quality of

existence of the humans. Having a more broad understanding, the

emotions and feelings also are the minds’ creations; so to speak

a certain feeling or emotion is again a human creation which

takes place in the mind first then is manifested in the outer

world. In outer world, creativity is manifested in two major

fields: Art and Science. These two different fields which share

4

some common goals have lot of similarities and differences at the

same time, in this paper some of the questions related to this

problem will be answered that whether the artist and scientist

share the same working mind conditionings or their thought

process have differences. In the advent of post modernism the

notion of artist as scientist became visible enough before that

art was considered and meant to be autonomous. Nowadays, usually

artists project themselves into the society or social circles or

the social structures, merging everywhere, but the method they

apply is as much scientific as science itself, because every

project undertaken by artist in the name of art essentially has a

scientific approach or one can say it is like an experiment a

scientist conducts, with the resultant unknown, the artist

searches or researches to make a way through the project and what

he comes up with is mostly a resultant which could have any

direction. Same is with the scientist who observes a thing like

an artist then making a hypothesis and conducting experiments and

reaching to the theoretical law or principle which before

experiment was once an imagination. The imagination for whom

Albert Einstein said that it is more important than knowledge.

5

“Einstein never had much interest in or

affection for modern art, yet many of the

conclusions to be drawn from his graceful

equations about time, space and light bear an

uncanny similarity to the innovations

introduced by Manet, Monet and Cezanne.”

(Shlain 2007, 119)

The imagination which is the basic and major constituent of

the thought process for both artist and scientist is commonly

misunderstood as these two fields apply different methodologies.

The masses think art as being the fiction based which thoroughly

rely on the imagination of the maker and science as being the

real and experiment conducted field which rely on the reason and

logic. Imagination thus is considered to be of the lower degree

then knowledge. So in order to understand the nature of this term

in the field of science we have to root deep into its origin and

let’s see if there is in value associated to imagination.

Considering the history, most brilliant studies, world changing

views were actually perceived by the imagination and then the

outcome of this imagination, experience, and one’s sensibilities

6

is then passed on as knowledge based on how much potential it

holds when it is tested against logic. Thus I may suggest that

knowledge is actually the product of knowledge because what

logic, reason, can a mind without sensibilities and imagination

produce.

“…produced anything which was not in dispute

and consequently doubtful" (Descartes 1950,

6).The only exception to this was in the

field of mathematics which he believed was

built on a "solid foundation". Medieval

science, on the other hand, was largely based

on authorities from the past rather than

observations in the present, therefore

Descartes decided to conduct a personal plan

of investigation.” (Descartes 1950, 5)

if everything has to be justified and brought about into

this world only and only on the terms and conditions of logic and

reason, meaning if the whole system and structure in science has

to have the prelude of logic then I would like to point towards

7

that where from did science generate from itself. Was it merely

logic and reason or were there any other faculties of Man

involved in there to notice and question or reason with those

phenomena later. How can we go on and say that science,

mathematics stands higher on the ladder of the hierarchy of the

knowledge. What makes literature lesser, just the fact that it is

not the sole undeniable truth which is not doubtful because it

was not born from logic?

“In science, Descartes discarded tradition

and to an extent supported the same method as

Francis Bacon, but with emphasis on

rationalization and logic rather than upon

experiences.”(Descartes, Rene)

Here again the emphasis of Descartes on “rationalization and

logic rather than upon experiences” is little perplexing, because

imaginations and experiences are very much interconnected to one

another and the fact that most of the revolutionary inventions in

the field of science cannot be made without the tendencies to

even come up with those ideas and fictional imaginations of

8

people like Da vinci, and on the other hand how can one separate

the perceptions and reason in the work of art or in works of

scientific fields.

I think that Einstein’s quote “Imagination is more important

than knowledge” is true due to the conditioning of the human mind

and the very nature of human and its understanding. The

understanding of nature is of that type that when thinsg can’t be

explained we think of it as dysfunctional. Metaphorically the

Imagination can be named as the mother of knowledge. Because

Imagination may or may not be perfect but the works of

imaginations such as Da Vinci’s imaginations have been

sceintifically explained and even executed in physical form.

“Take one typical instance — Einstein's

prediction, just then confirmed by the

finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's

gravitational theory had led to the result

that light must be attracted by heavy bodies

(such as the sun), precisely as material

bodies were attracted. As a consequence it

9

could be calculated that light from a distant

fixed star whose apparent position was close

to the sun would reach the earth from such a

direction that the star would seem to be

slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in

other words, that stars close to the sun

would look as if they had moved a little away

from the sun, and from one another.”(Popper,

1963)

One can undoubtedly take account that that the way chosen by

Einstein is not one of the major science. Einstein made use of

his perceptions bit farther than any scientific scholar. The

science which is considered to be the logical and based on reason

he made it upside down by broadening his imaginations and

violating the preconceived ideas and rules of science. The theory

which he proposed seemed fictional to the people of that time but

then it was proofed and appreciated which tells us that even in

science there is space and roam for the imagination.

10

The concept of science being that of rational and behind which is

the wall of method, here I agree on Popper’s words that one

learns from his/her mistakes. As popper says “In so far as a

scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be

falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not

speak about reality.”

As Thomas Kuhn puts it

“This paradigm-based research is “an attempt

to force nature into the pre-formed and

relatively inflexible box that the paradigm

applies”. No effort is made to call forth new

sorts of phenomena, no effort to discover

anomalies. When anomalies pop up, they are

usually discarded or ignored……..”(Kuhn)

Parallels can be drawn between what Einstein is stated in

his quote and what Kuhn is implying here. If the sole purpose of

the knowledge is to carry on the investigations like a “good

scientist” and whatever comes in way is to be treated and weighed

with equal importance and priority then how can the anomalies on

11

which the whole new paradigm can come into being be looked over?

Doesn’t then this form of education which is so restricted by its

history become a sort of a metanarrative which has to be followed

as facts and can’t be questioned which science makes a claim to

do, doesn’t this knowledge then necessarily put a stop to the

flow of knowledge and “progress” and human development?

Imagination here becomes one of the pre-requisites to carry on

with the stagnant knowledge as a form of hope. Maybe what this

institutionalized modern science and its “ethics” need is the

open room of imagination and sensibilities to carry in its

projects for humanity which would be more humane than what they

are right now, although most of the “sane” would want to disagree

with me on that statement.

“The development process described by Kuhn is

a process of evolution from primitive

beginnings. It is a process whose successive

stages are characterised by an increasingly

12

detailed and refined understanding of

nature…”(Kuhn)

If there is only purpose of the knowledge which is to carry

on the investigations and experiments then what about the

Einstein’s whole theory which changed the world by wonders, one

cannot sight track the century’s big invention. Doesn’t then this

form of education which is so restricted by its history becomes

the dysfunctional one by itself.

The approach toward it of kuhn’s ideas and words is of that

sort as of albert einstein as they are reflecting on the

primitive beginnings, the myths, the observations and

perceptions. As Kuhn says “It becomes necessary to indulge into

the Nature of Man, in order to understand the underlying

character of the things, if looked upon it that way, as

Descartes also when finding everything doubtful took upon himself

to start with the study of self. The nature cannot be thought of

as constant, because of its character, same way Thomas Kuhn is

implying that any evolution can come into being only when the

paradigms start shifting when the old thought are replaced or

13

even attacked by the new revolutionary thoughts, now what can do

that if not the involvement of senses and Imagination.”

Now, “modern science”, the way it has been institutionalized, has

been marketed, is actually the anti-thesis to anarchy, anarchy

being the existential character of nature as well as Man.

“Proliferation of theories is beneficial to

science, while uniformity impairs its

critical power. Uniformity also endangers the

free development of the individual”

(Feyerabend, 1975)

So here Paul Feyerabend is basically voicing his concerns over

the unimaginative, linear narrative that science has adopted now.

The concern of the linear stagnant form of knowledge that once

was the hopes of “Human” is now the synonym for rule, regulation,

autrhority, logic, rationality. Science now stands for power on

the basis of truth, no one can argue with the facts. It is this

claim to truth, which makes it possible for science to be the

14

highest form of authority. Science has even come to hold higher

hierarchical grounds in the modern society based on its claim to

hold relative scientific truth.

Now, concerning Paul Feyerabend again, he wanted to rescue

science of its own self. Science has on the basis of the

understanding of Paul Feyerabend ceased to be the pure, factual

and undoubted knowledge for it has become a manifestation of the

brute power because of its institutionalization.

“…Thus science is much closer to myth than a

scientific philosophy is prepared to admit.

It is one of the many forms of thought that

have been developed by man, and not

necessarily the best. It is conspicuous,

noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently

superior only for those who have already

decided in favor of a certain ideology, who

have accepted it without having ever examined

its advantages and its limits. And as

accepting and rejecting of ideologies should

15

be left to the individual it follows that the

separation of state and science, that most

recent, most aggressive, most dogmatic

religious institution, such a separation may

be our only chance to achieve a humanity we

are capable of, but have never fully

realised.”(Feyerabend, 1975)

Here again Feyerabend is implying that even though science is

methodical but where from did it rise, the relation of science

with myth is as deep as the relation of mind and matter. As David

Bohm has put it:

Science was concerned not only with practical

problems of assimilating nature to man’s

physical needs, but also with the

psychological need to understand the universe

—to assimilate it mentally so that man could

feel “at home” in it. Early creation myths,

which were as much scientific in their aims

16

as religious, certainly had this function.

(Bohm 1998, 27)

The weapon that was to be used for the development of

humanity has actually turned its back on Human, science as

Feyerabend is implying has been turned into the institution to

serve certain ideologies and then we might venture ahead and

think of this beautiful piece or domain of art being turned into

a weapon to serve the cause of the state or church! By default,

one notices the anarchist undertone in the writings of Feyerabend

and in the above citation it is actually shouting for attention,

origin of science is not method but anarchy, behind the science

or the method is myth, belief, common sense. Human and nature if

understanding correctly cannot have static rules neither in mind

nor in nature is a fixed boundary, then how come science can

claim to have a fixed methodological boundary which is so static.

Since here, it is briefly understood that imagination which

is a mind thing, a form of creativity is equally important in

both fields. A scientist is always indulged in the thought of

doing something new, in discovering new orders of lawfulness in

17

the world. This lawfulness is not appealing basically for its

formalism, but rather the appeal is in the scientist’s

apprehension of “a certain oneness and totality, or wholeness,

constituting a kind of harmony that is felt to be beautiful.”

(Bohm 1998, 8) Here Bohm is suggesting that the scientific

inquiry is of a richly aesthetic quality. In now-a-days world one

of the main reasons of science and art being two alienated fields

from each other and not closely related is the contemporary

scientific view of the universe. Like the earlier times as in the

age of enlightenment when the man was thought to be the centre of

the universe, that notion gave the meaning to the life of man.

The basis for the early 16th scientific revolution was the

Copernican revolution which regarded earth as a grain of dust in

this vast mechanical universe and while man was seen as less than

a microbe on this grain of dust. This new view had a very great

psychological impact on mankind.

“….by considering the fact that most

scientists (and especially the most creative

ones, such as Einstein, Poincare, Dirac, and

18

others like them) feel very strongly that the

laws of the universe, as disclosed thus far

by science, have a very striking and

significant kind of beauty, which suggests

that deeply they do not really look at the

universe as a mere mechanism. Here, then, is

a possible link between science and art,

which latter is centrally oriented towards

beauty.” (Bohm 1998, 31)

A modern noble prize winner physicist Richard Feynman who

was a keen draughtsman was highly inspired by the art and did

some marvelous drawings. He claimed that a scientist can see more

beauty let’s say in a flower than an artist. Like he said in a

video interview that, “I could imagine the cells in there, the

complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty.” Since

science is considered to be a knowledge based field, where as

knowledge does not detracts from beauty. Since the Feynman was

interviewed in 1981, the science has progressed a lot and due to

the advancement in photography instruments. The "beauty at

19

smaller dimensions" that Feynman spoke about has now been

illuminated by high magnification images which enhance both

scientific understanding and are often works of art in

themselves. Feynman suggests that a scientist can appreciate

beauty at a deeper level and further he says:

“The way I think of what we are doing is, we

are exploring, and we are trying to find out

as much as we can about the world. People say

to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws

of physics?” No I am not. I am just looking

to find out more about the world the nature.”

(Feynman 1981)

The English poet William Wordsworth disagrees with the

argument that a scientific understanding increases our

appreciation of nature, as he wrote:

"Sweet is the lore which nature brings;

Our meddling intellect

20

Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things;

We murder to dissect." (Wordsworth 1798)

But here the question is not that one being the superior to

the other, but rather than finding the core objective of the both

fields. What Feynman argues that a scientist looks deeper in the

appreciation of beauty of a certain thing is as valid as his

artist friend Jiryar Zorthian’s account on beauty is. In the

video both argues on the nature of the appreciation of the beauty

in terms of their respective fields. But there is a common notion

that beauty is nothing more than a subjective response of man

based on the pleasures that he takes in looking and that appeals

to his imagination, here it makes a key link between art and

science for to the scientist, both the universe and his theory of

it are beautiful, in the same as a work of art can regarded

beautiful. of course both the artist and scientist differ in

their very way. A scientist’s work initiates at a very abstract

idea as pointed out earlier as the imagination being the basic

tool for any of the both, while his perceptual contact with the

outer world is largely mediated by instruments. On the other hand

21

the artist works mainly on creating concrete objects that are

directly perceptible without instruments.

“…yet, as one approaches the

broadest possible field of science, one

discovers closely related criteria of “truth”

and “beauty”. For what the artist creates

must be

“true to itself”, just as the broad

scientific theory must be “true to itself”.

Thus neither scientist nor the artist is

really satisfied to regard beauty as that

which “tickles one’s fancy”. Rather, in

unconsciously, by whether they are “true to

themselves”, and are accepted or rejected on

this basis, whether one likes it or not so

the artist must really needs a scientific

attitude to his work, as the scientist must

have an artistic attitude to his.” (Bohm

1998, 33)

22

Think of an artist as creatively-based and a scientist as

knowledge-based then presume that both of them are given say a

rose. For the scientist, his first thought may be the flower’s

scientific name. For the artist, that first thought may be of

emotional quality- a symbol for a feeling. Than what the value

emotions have in art and in science respectively as they are the

defining characteristic of human. Is science really the realm of

the cold intellect, and art the dominion of the heart? Like in

science as a hypothesis is developed and then conducted by the

experiments and tested and then a scientist uses particular

methods to explore a large dataset to see if it contains

information that answers a key question. And in this whole

process it is mandatory not allowing the scientist’s personal

hopes and aspirations to enter the equation; but most scientists

would probably argue that they find science to be an emotional

venture. After all, there are underlying ideas — be it curing

cancer or exploring the universe that drive the scientists

onward, and which they are passionate about. The role of emotion

in art and science, it’s in both places, but we have to recognize

the subjectivity of all of this. Different individuals are

23

touched by different things but what the doer feels at the first

hand is the same in both cases.

So far one can clearly see the relevance of each mind

faculty such as creativity, imagination, knowledge, appreciation

of beauty and emotions discussed above have the equal importance

in both the fields. The artist employs image and metaphor; the

scientist uses number and equation. Art encompasses an

imaginative realm of aesthetic qualities where science exists in

a world of crisply circumscribed mathematical relationships

between quantifiable properties. Art and science are both

investigations into the nature of reality. As Roy Litchtenstein

had said that “Organized perception is what art is all

about.”(David 1981, 95) Newton would also had said as much for

the physics, he too was concerned with organizing perceptions.

Whereas both work differently with different methodologies but

the core objective is the desire to investigate the ways of

interlocking pieces of reality fit together. This is the common

ground upon which they meet. These two fields are so connected

24

that the novelist Vladimir Nabokov wrote, “There is no science

without fancy and no art without facts.”

References:

Shlain, Leonard. 2007. Art and Physics: parallel visions in space, time, and light. New York: Harper Perennial.

Descartes, Rene. 1950. Discourse on Method. Translated by L. J. Lafleur. Indiana: Bobbs-Merril.

Descartes, Rene. (n.d.). Accessed May 19, 2013 from infoplease: http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/descartes-rene-major-contributions-to-science.html

Popper, K. (1963). stephenjaygould.org. accessed May 19, 2013, from Science as Falsification: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Kuhn, T. (n.d.). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, synopsis by Prof. Framk Pajares. Philosopher's Web Magazine.

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method-outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge

Bohm, David. 1998. On creativity. Editted by Lee Nichol. New York: Routledge.

Feynman, Richard. 1981. Accessed May 21, 2013 from Youtube:

25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5U1cpo_sk

Wordsworth, william. 1798. Accessed May 21, 2013 from Bartleyby:

http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww134.html

David, Piper. 1981. Random house history of painting and sculpture. New York: Random House.