Thanks, cautions duly noted. I picked up the book in the New Mexico
Tech bookstore in Socorro, first thing of its kind I'd seen. I saw
from the web pages that he gets criticized by both the science and art
world and he admits to being an amateur in both fields. I enjoyed it
for the way he formulates a language to talk about how fundamental
notions of experience like space, time and light shift in similar ways
in different domains to some historical rhythm. He tosses in
literature and architecture and music towards the end just for good
measure, no pun intended. I don't think there was much in the way of
direct contact or conscious knowing across those domains, either. But
that old saw still fascinates me. whether or not fundamental ideas
shift across domains/places/persons to the beat of the same historical
drummer, or not. Foucault on amphetamines. What the hell, the guy
probably made it all up, but then I enjoyed Castañeda's Teachings of
Don Juan, too.
Mike
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Jack Leibowitz wrote:
Michael,
Shlain's book is a good read. It's hard for me-- and probably
unwise since I have a book as well--to say a critical word about it,
although others have done so..
I have long been aware of Shlain's book. The basic thesis is that
art pre-discovers physics. One might readily agree that, in the arts
and sciences, the zeitgeist, ie, the spirit of the time, reveals
itself both in science and the arts (music, literature, and the
sciences). But one must tread carefully here and not overuse a
theme, and sweep details under one rug.
An example: In the 1860s Manet painted a number of single-figure
paintings. Examples: The Dead Toreador (in the National Gallery of
art in Washington), The Piper, and the Dead Toreador ( now in the
Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena). Manet said that he had no trouble
painting figures in groups but found painting single figures an
artistic challenge. This is a position he shared with Delacroix,
whose work he admired greatly.The curators at the Norton Simon
Museum have made a very careful analyisis of Manet's purposes in
this regard (cf, my book comments and an excerpt from thier essay).
So the particular way Manet approached such a problem was quite
singular.He painted them without any significant anchoring ground
shadow.
This, Shlain jumped on as evidence that Manet knew in 1866 that
there was something wrong with Newton's theory of gravity.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which revolutionized our
concept of space, time, and matter, came in 1915. It is universally
regarded among most historians of science as one of the most
revolutionary ideas in physics, surely unanticipated by artists on
the streets of Paris in 1866. (See Gerald Holton, refrred to in my
book.).There are some connecttions made with nn-Euclidean geometry,
but that is another story.
On the other hand, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
is quite a different thing: if he hadn't published that work when he
did, someone else was likely to have done so shortly thereafter:
That theory was "in the air" -among physicists at least.
The basic point is that art had its own justifications for Manet's
work. Similarly, Shlain's brush tarred Cezanne's still lifes the
same way. Again , one must examine GCezanne's own imperatives.(See
my book.)
If FRIAM and the Santa Fe Complex are interested in pursuing the
art, technology theme, I recommend a solidly scholarly book:
LynnGamwell's Exploring the Invisible:Art: Science, and the
Spiritual (Princeton U Press, 2002)
Jack
(author of Hidden Harmony , the Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2008)
Original Message -----
From: Michael Agar
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Science and Art
Just finishing Leonard Shlain's Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in
Space, Time and Light. Older book, 1991, quite good. http://www.artandphysics.com/index.html
.
Mike
On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote:
Jochen,
Here is another take on Science and Art.
http://wwwartic.edu/aic/education/sciarttech/2a1.html
O
Jochen Fromm wrote:
Maybe interesting for the sfX ?
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_future_of_scienceis_art.php
-J.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Orlando Leibovitz
orla...@orlandoleibovitz.com
www.orlandoleibovitz.com
Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Orlando Leibovitz
orla...@orlandoleibovitz.com
www.orlandoleibovitz.com
Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
