We have scientists on the arts, but where are the artists on science?

C.P. Snow, the novelist and chemist, once wrote about the two cultures: one being the scientists, the other being intellectuals, those who wrote for a wide audience in general-interest publications like Raritan and The New Criterion. He said there was too much of a divide between them. They didn't know how to talk to each other. And this divide is what characterizes the life of the mind in the West. In his view, the scientists were going to stay the same, that is, set on their course. So it was up to the intellectuals -- the historians, novelists, poets, journalists, policy writers -- to relate to the rest of the world what scientists were doing, why, and why it mattered. These would make up what he called The Third Culture. That was in 1959. The idea never took off. That's partly due, I think, to the fact that traditional intellectuals, those who work in academe, especially English departments (where I spent some time way back when), turned inward. Pressured by academic standards like "publish or perish," fueled by a huge expansion of the American and European university, and in thrall to intellectual orthodoxies originating from Continental Europe (Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Lacan, Adorno, Habermas, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and so on), they increasingly talked to themselves and not to everyone else. Meanwhile, scientists have made their way into territory that used to belong to Snow's intellectuals. Oliver Sacks, Atul Gawande, Jerome Groopman, and Steven Pinker -- these are just a few of the scientists, researchers, and doctors who have incredible careers but who also are terrific writers with a lot to say to everyone who is not as intimate, or even remotely versed, in their respective disciplines. They write and they write well. And sometimes they write about the arts, especially that intersection where the arts and the scientific fields of mind messily come together. For instance, Oliver Sacks' latest book is about music (Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain). There's a group called the Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. There are many journals dedicated to exploring this new and fertile terrain: PsyArt, The Arts and Psychotherapy, Empirical Studies of the Arts, and so on. But you don't see artists, or literary intellectuals for that matter, talking about science the way that scientists talk about the arts. You don't see them trying to understand what they do given what we now know about the mind, about human behavior, about how we constitute our societies, about the universe. And it's not just scientists writing about the arts as scientists. For many years, they have also engaged in them. You have scientists who write novels (e.g., Alan Lightman's Einstein's Dreams). You have medical scholars and researchers writing poetry (a local example is MUSC's literary journal, Humanitas). Artists do reach out but not with equal volume, probity, and cultural impact. These exceptions so far undermine the rule. They are far from proving it. Suzanne Anker, chair of the Fine Arts Department at the School for Visual Arts in New York City, co-curated a 2006 exhibit called Neuroculture: Visual Art and the Brain. And Adrienne Klein, co-director of the Science & the Arts Program at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, created a video installation called Mind's Eye in 1998 that taps into the flow-chart nature of human thought. How about more conversations like this one? SEED magazine this month asked Tom Wolfe, the novelist and journalist, to interview Michael Gazzaniga, the father of cognitive neuroscience. You can see a video of the discussion here. Perhaps the most exciting event to characterize this cross-pollination was in Iceland in May. There, in what was called an "experiment marathon," part of the Reykjavík Arts Festival, dozens of artists and scientists discussed topics "as diverse as sleep patterns, wind currents, and how we laugh, stepped to a small stage," according to the Boston Globe.
Later, one artist, Halldór Úlfarsson, would describe the wider world of artistic abstractionists like this: "It's a kind of think pot where stuff happens. And once in a while, out of that, something grows that people connect with better."
What can be said about this on a local level? How can artists better understand their role in the psychological and cognitive experience of everyday people? If we are only beginning to understand the human mind, doesn't it follow that artists, who have so much insight into the human mind, should be a part of that discussion? Wouldn't artists have a lot to say to scientists of the brain and philosophers of the mind?
July 30, 2008 7:45 AM | | Comments (7)

Categories:

7 Comments

I am a "science geek" (day job: teaching organic chemistry) who is studying to be an artist (2 years or so into a BFA in Sculpture). It seems to me that when folks make art, most of the time they are engaging in self-expression; you can't express it if you don't have it.

If you want to see more art that "talks" about science, you need to find science geeks who are artistically inclined and encourage them to make art. There's a lot of creativity in science and it doesn't always take much to channel it in visual, less numerical, ways.

Thank you for referring to my work in this context. More of my work can be seen at www.adrienneklein.net

Learning the Scientific culture is tough, and best done when you are young. It is difficult to debate sensibly about science without a smattering of physics, maths, and numeracy. If you give up on these early, catchin up is very difficult.

But the scientist can start to appreciate many of the arts such as music, sculpture, theatre, lierature, and painting with little difficulty. Subjects that cross the science/arts boundary - architecture, clocks, cityscapes, archaeology, photography - really need a little science for maximum appreciation.

And to enjoy 21st century life, surely you must try to understand the basics of evolution, computers, astronomy, cars and the complex machines we use every day. Kids should be taught these things when young.

In fact, the science, arts and crafts divisions are surely outdated, particularly the fine arts/crafts division. Many wonderful cultural pleasures - gardening, history, food, wine - are deeper for some scientific knowledge

It’s an admirable goal – proceed with caution. At its worst, cross-disciplinary musings can be excellent vehicles for spreading viruses of miss-information and unfortunate stereotyping. Even the best writers of these tropes all too frequently fail to appreciate the nuances and subtle quibbling of full time practitioners in the other field. Information gets tweaked in order to make a supposed cross-disciplinary “insight.”

For years I'd been a member of this group...
http://www.asci.org/
which has been doing for years what you seem to be saying is not being done. ?

John: you are spot-on! As a musician (conductor and conducting pedagogue), I have been exploring the relationship between what those in my field do and research in anthropology, neuroscience, psychology, etc., for many years. I incorporate my discoveries and ideas into my teaching and often refer to related research in conversations with peers. Currently, I am engaged in research on the release of neuropeptides during music making. As your piece suggests, most of my colleagues look at me as though I'm from another planet!

There are, of course, myriad institutional roadblocks prohibiting true, trans-disciplinary work at most institutions. David Edwards outlines these beautifully in ArtScience: Creativity in the post-Google Generation. Hopefully, we are entering a new era, when artists feel compelled to invest at least some of their inherent curiosity and powers of observation in the sciences and, moreover, are supported in their quest. My experience is that once that bridge is crossed, there is no turning back!

Thanks for your insights...this non-whining, insatiably curious "boomer" finds them provocative!

I have been investigating science, through the arts, for years, especially cognitive science. In fact, my theater company, Untitled Theater Co. #61 (which we term a Theater of Ideas) ran a theater festival on just that subject: the NEUROfest. We performed in New York, and most recently had a performance in Chicago as part of the AAN national meeting.

I also am the recipient of a Sloan Grant for my play about my grandfather, who discovered the Rh factor in blood (a play called Doctors Jane and Alexander). As you may know, the Sloan Foundation, through a few different theaters (Ensemble Studio Theater, Manhattan Theater Club, etc), has been handing out grants for people to write on the subject.

I plan a second NEUROfest at some point, and we have continued to present works on science, at my theater company--we produced a piece called Brains and Puppets in February (which addressed autism and synesthesia) and just produced a reading of the aforementioned Doctors Jane and Alexander, which we will be doing a full production of in May.

I talk about all those subjects as well on my blog, http://theaterofideas.blogspot.com/

Blogroll

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by FlyOver published on July 30, 2008 7:45 AM.

The Arts and a Generation of Whiners (?) was the previous entry in this blog.

Another scientist talking about art, this time satire is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.