Introduction AUSTIN DACEY

SI N-D 2006 pgs 9/27/06 9:25 AM Page 21 Introduction AUSTIN DACEY onet is said to have remarked to a young artist that he wished he had been born blind and suddenly Mregained his sight so that he could paint without knowing what objects he was looking at, allowing the eye to take in color and shape without cognitive prejudice. Would this also be good advice for a young scientist? Or is seeing in science a kind of seeing-as, wherein perception is brought under some category or conception? Science and art are united in showing the results of “intense seeing,” the “wide-eyed observing that generates empirical information.” So says Edward Tufte, a leader in the new field of information design, which brings together data presenta- tion, information technology, and aesthetics. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER November / December 2006 21 SI N-D 2006 pgs 9/27/06 9:25 AM Page 22 You can see what he means by looking at the illustrations by The counterpart to science of art is art of science, in which Galileo and Matisse here (pages 40–41) reprinted from Tufte’s the content of the work presents or takes inspiration from sci- new book, Beautiful Evidence. entific themes, as in our collection of poems by contemporary Intensity is not the same thing as accuracy, of course. poets Alison Hawthorne Deming, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Consider the famous line by Dutch modernist painter Willem Roald Hoffmann, and Forrest Gander. De Kooning: “When I’m falling, I’m doing all right; when I’m Sometimes science not only informs the content of art but slipping, I say, hey, this is interesting! It’s when I’m standing transforms the very process of creation or the concept of the upright that bothers me: I’m not doing so good; I’m stiff. As a artwork itself. Call this science in art. We see it in the work of matter of fact, I’m really slipping, most of the time into that Joshua Fineberg, a rising classical composer whose instrument glimpse. I’m like a slipping glimpser.” of choice is the electronic sonogram, not the piano. In an interview with SKEPTICAL INQUIRER he discusses an influential and radically new form of music that has its roots in acousti- cal science and computer technology. While computer-assisted compositions take Carnegie Hall, robots are heading for the Met. Galleries around the world are now selling paintings by robots, like the latest creation by the Portuguese artist Leonel Moura. His Robotic Action Painter Sometimes science runs an algorithm incorporating initial randomness, positive not only informs the feedback, and a set of “color as pheromone” sensors. It decides when the work is ready and signs in the bottom right corner. See content of art but several examples on this issue’s cover. (The paintbots aren’t demanding a cut of the gallery sales—yet.) transforms the very Finally, we find art in science, perhaps the most elusive species. Clifford Pickover, whose latest book is on the Möbius process of creation strip, discusses how artistic and computer visualizations can or the concept of assist in conceptualization and model construction in science. Meanwhile, an instructor at the Parsons School of Design in the artwork itself. New York City named Julia Wargawski has been assigning the redesign of the Periodic Table as a studio project for her stu- dents. Art shows up nature. On the back cover, Ray Villard of the Space Telescope Science Institute at Johns Hopkins explains that the astro- nomical objects published there for some time by SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, which have delighted readers with their spectacular pink and blue hues, have all along been outfitted with a palette According to Margaret Livingstone, a professor of neurobi- of pleasing but “false” colors. The real things don’t look like ology at Harvard Medical School, and her coauthor Bevil much at all, to our eyes anyway. What’s wrong with taking a Conway, De Kooning and a surprising number of other visual little artistic license with the universe? artists quite literally may have seen the world differently than In a provocative closing piece, the distinguished neurosci- most of us. In “View Masters,” the authors look at painting entist V.S. Ramachandran offers a portrait of the scientist as a through the neurobiology of vision. young artist—passionate about the pursuit for its own sake, a Livingstone and Conway are engaged in what could be risk-taker, and an enemy of conformity, professionalism, and called the science of art, scientific examination of art as a nat- “respectability.” Can too much skepticism kill this spirit? ural phenomenon. The evolutionary psychologist Steven This special section of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER on the intersection Pinker presents a broad rationale for this kind of examination: of science and art provides only a glimpse of the terrain, touching it will reenergize the humanities by plugging them into the on visual art, poetry, literature, music, and design, while slipping dynamism of the natural sciences, in particular “the sciences of past architecture, film, drama, and dance. For a more intense (and human nature.” Do English professors need to get in touch interactive) look, visit www.scienceartfestival.com/gallery. with their inner human beings? Lisa Zunshine makes the case by way of the cognitive psychology of fiction. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Victoria Alexander, Kurt Brown, Richard Einstein, Kendrick Frazier, Michel Galante, Matthew Gold, Rhiannon Inners, Austin Dacey, PhD, a contributing editor of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Scott Johnson, Adrienne Klein, Leonel Moura, Clifford Pickover, magazine, is a philosopher and frustrated musician. Douglas Repetto, and Edward Tufte for their ideas and advice. ! 22 Volume 30, Issue 6 • www.scienceartfestival.com • SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

Load more