Science
in Context: Writing Modern Art and Science
by Linda Dalrymple Henderson, Guest Editor
Cambridge University Press, London and
New York, December 2004
Volume 17, Number 4, pp.423-635
ISSN: 02698897.
Reviewed by Amy Ione
The Diatrope Institute
ione@diatrope.com
Comparing recent writings on art and
science with comments from earlier centuries
brings to mind the degree to which our
conclusions reflect the context of our
era. Often discussed is how the process
of adapting our minds and sensitivities
to new views of reality and living systems
re-frames ontological and epistemological
debates, influences scientific theory
and experimental design, and imprints
art theory and practice. Less discussed
are the roots of contemporary activities,
many of which are traceable to late 19th
through mid-20th century events.
This is the period primarily covered in
Linda Dalrymple Hendersons special
edition of Science in Context titled
"Writing Modern Art and Science." This
superb collection offers methodological
models that contextualize how developments
in science play a critical role in an
artists cultural context. One of
the strengths of the book is that the
contributors offer well-researched information
that illustrates conjunctions among art
and science without trying to "prove"
conjunctions exist, or conflating science
with technology. As a result, the volume
offers research that elevates the field
on its own terms by elucidating
points of intersection.
This is not to say that issues joining
art, science, and technology are absent.
Anne Collins Goodyears essay "Gyorgy
Kepes, Billy Klüver and American
Art of the 1960s: Defining Attitudes Toward
Science and Technology," for example,
juxtaposes the two figures named in her
title. After acknowledging that, due to
similarities in their work, the two names
are frequently linked, Goodyear demonstrates
that there were philosophical and practical
differences between the artist Gyorgy
Kepes and the engineer Billy Kluver. Her
vehicle for distinguishing their contributions
is a comparison of the organizations they
nurtured, (Kepes, the Center for Advanced
Visual Studies at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, and Kluver, Experiments
in Art and Technology).
Goodyears stated intention was to
reveal both how the cultural conditions
of the 1960s contributed to the perceived
need for such agencies and how interactions
between art, science, and technology reflected,
at once, the culmination of aspirations
reaching back to the opening decades of
the twentieth century, and a perceived
break with the past. Yet, what was most
impressive was the power of her tightly
argued essay to reach beyond its own focus
though the questions she examined. The
authors unique insight into the
distinct origins of such organized collaborations
between art, science, and technology tied
the personal with societal concerns so
effectively that she touched on issues
that continue to haunt the many practitioners.
One of the most thought-provoking aspects
of the text was the way it brought to
mind the many who wrestle with whether
collaborative projects work best within
academic settings or without a traditional
base.
Barbara Larsons contribution, "Odilon
Redon and the Pasteurian Revolution: Health,
Illness, and le monde invisible"
was remarkably contemporary despite being
its focus on an historical figure. Larson
speaks of how the Symbolist Odilon Redon
incorporated the invisible world of microbes
into his works on paper. Centering the
argument scientific/medical issues that
stimulated this artists creative
process allowed the author to expand Redons
work beyond his metaphysical and symbolist
views. Of particular interest is her discussion
of his anxiety over invisible biological
danger, a perspective that resonates among
many still.
Equally compelling were Peter Geimer "Picturing
the Black Box: On Blanks in Nineteenth
Century Paintings and Photographs" and
Oliver A.I. Botars "László
Moholy-Nagys New Vision and the
Aestheticization of Scientific Photography
in Weimar Germany." Although both interrogate
the status of photography in relation
to art and science, the differences between
the two essays served to accentuate the
range we find in the literature related
to these topics, and in this volume as
well. Geimer looks at the work of Edouard
Manet, Thomas Kaife, Albert Londe, Arthur
Worthington and others to show how scientific
and artistic practices were re-configured
in the nineteenth century. Two reproductions,
one comparing Worthingtons photographs
of a falling drop of milk into water,
the other his etchings of a falling drop,
were among the most articulate contrasts
Ive seen. In this case, the juxtaposition
demonstrates how photography altered the
imaginative process and the visual products
as well. The two images vividly record
similar information, but they are conceptually
quite different. The photographs provide
a sequenced account of the actual falling.
The drawings, which needed to rely on
attentive observation and a longer rendering
time, appear static and more contrived.
Thus, we can see that both are imaginative
creations, and yet placing the drawings
next to the photographs provides a stunning
statement of how dramatically the use
of photography altered visual options.
Botars essay, on the other hand,
speaks of Moholy-Nagy's suggestion that
products of applied, particularly scientific,
photography be employed as exemplars for
art photography. The author explains that
the artist integrated such applied photographs
with art photographs in his practice,
publications and exhibitions. This in
turn laid the groundwork for an aestheticization
of scientific photography within the twentieth-century
artistic avant-garde. According to Botar,
the science at play was "biocentrism,"
and his key inspiration was the biologist
and popular scientific writer Raoul Heinrich
Francé, and his conception of Biotechnik
[bionics]. Botars discussion is
well argued, particularly his description
of this artists desire to teach
people to see more, a goal that greatly
influenced Moholy-Nagy's work. Also of
value was Botars integration of
several figures of the time (such as the
pre-eminent biological illustrator, Ernst
Haeckel). Like Geimer, Botars writing
shows the crucial role of the imagination
to photography and the role of the photographer
in this intervention.
Two additional essays round out the volume.
Gavin Parkinsons re-thinking of
connections between Quantum Mechanics
and Surrealism tracks the diffusion of
the new scientific findings into French
sources. In doing this, Parkinson establishes
the way in which Surrealists (such as
Wolfgang Paalen and Robert Matta) worked
to find a language for quantum physics
that would aid them in assimilating its
findings with Surrealism. Stephen Petersens
essay moves to the mid-twentieth century,
exploring how artists reacted to the Atomic
Age. Both of these essays would have benefited
immensely from color reproductions. The
analysis of artists associated with the
Atomic Age (Dali, Pollock, Fontana, Dova,
etc.) translated better, perhaps because
I am more familiar with the work that
was shown to illustrate the text. Reading
the Surrealism chapter, admittedly, I
had some problems envisioning the images.
For example, Paalens Figure pandynamique
has enough contrast to convey its dynamism
in the half-tone reproduction. Polarités
majeures, however, translated
into a monotone that seemed both muddy
and scratchy.
Overall, the publication is delightful.
One shortcoming is its lack of attention
to art and the brain, an area that I believe
could benefit from more attention in general.
Nonetheless, as a whole, the six well-developed
case studies come together to illustrate
that reactions to altered perceptions
of the physical, the invisible, and what
lies in-between stimulated projects that
re-wrote our view of the world, transformed
the human story, and added new avenues
for artistic innovation as well. The composite
is enhanced by Hendersons introduction,
which broadens the terrain covered by
the papers and demonstrates that terms
like science, art, and modernism have
significations that have varied over time.
To her credit, Henderson points out the
contributions of Leonardo and the
Society for Literature, Art and Science
have aided the fields development.
"Writing Modern Art and Science" does
this as well.
Indeed, the essays in this volume are
so integral to the Leonardo mission
that the publication struck me as an indirect
tribute to all that Leonardos
many venues have done to elevate awareness
of art and science intersections. As a
whole, members of the Leonardo community
will find the essays useful in their own
research. They are meticulously researched,
provide extensive bibliographic references,
and are supplemented by a wealth of details
in the footnotes. I highly recommend the
book. Those who have access to a university
library can find the contents online through
<http://journals.cambridge.org>.