Conference Overview: The Relationship between Art and Science

Author(s): Eleonora Barbieri Masini

Source: Leonardo, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1996), pp. 19-22
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1576271
Accessed: 07-09-2018 19:41 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Leonardo

This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:41:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 str lU DSk1 Wt DII I

The Relationship bet

Art and Science

he basic idea of the International Workshop on Art and Science held

in Vinci in December 1992 (with the support of the United Nations Educational, Sci-
entific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], the European Economic Community
(ECC) and Ente Nazionale di Energie Alternative [ENEA]) was to study how the rela-
tionship between art and science has evolved over time and how it can be expected
to develop in the future.
The need for a sociohistorical approach was initially expressed by the World Acad-
emy of Art and Science (WAAS)-a non-government organization whose members
are scientists, artists, art historians and critics [1]--with the conviction that it was time
to take a closer look at both the historical links between science and art and the ways
in which humans use science and art to better understand nature. This latter process
was described by Ilya Prigogine as a "dialogue" between nature and science; for others
it is art that offers insight into human nature and the natural environment.
The discussion in Vinci of the past, present and, in particular, the future relation-
ships between art, science and nature was only the starting point of a greater discus-
sion that can be expected to last for years to come. Indeed, in my view, this discus-
sion will be central in a world of increasing complexity characterized by increasingly
rapid and interrelated change. Human beings will need to use every means at their
disposal to understand the complexity [2] in which they are forced to live.
Human creativity is at the basis of both science and art, each of which in turn con-
tribute to our understanding of nature and complexity. This aspect was discussed at
length at the conference. According to conference participant Richard Gregory, sci-
ence is explanatory and art evocative [3]. Both functions, in my view, are destined to
gain increasing importance as social or global complexity increases. In the opinion
of art critic and conference participant Gillo Dorfles, what distinguishes art from sci-
ence is that art is done voluntarily with no expectation of return, while science is, in a
certain sense, a contract indicating that some kind of return is expected [4]. This
view carries with it a value judgment in favor of a division between areas of human
knowledge that must be revisited at a time when human survival is at stake-whether
as a result of natural or social reasons-and when all possible approaches to knowl-
edge are needed.
The debate in Vinci focused on the relationship between two ways of looking at
global complexity-through art or through science-in both the present and the fu-
ture. In describing the relationship between art and science in the past, conference
participant Umberto Colombo emphasized the similarities that have existed between
these two forms of knowledge and their interpretations of nature and reality over
time [5]. He referred to the historical role of Arab culture in preserving elements of
art and science from and for other cultures and suggested that, as the Renaissance
gave way to the modern age, art and science began to move apart. He claimed that it
is only now that their former ties are being renewed, to the benefit of both disci-
plines and society at large.
Colombo gave the example of Leon Battista Alberti's fascination with geometrical
perspective in the Renaissance and of the great Italian masters, such as Paolo Uccello

? 1996 ISAST This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:41:45 UTC Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 19-22, 1996 19
LEONARDO,
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 and Piero della Francesca, whose works are now being scientifically analyzed by ex-
perts with the goal of gaining a better understanding of what the relationship be-
tween art and scientific knowledge was for Renaissance artists. An example of this
kind of analysis is the work being done by Marilyn Lavin, who was present at the Vinci
meeting and whose paper is included in this special section.
As indicated by Colombo in his paper, modern science can help us gain a better un-
derstanding of the artist and scientist of the past. In this way, Leonardo da Vinci's
works, rather than merely representing the joint function of art and science in terms
of assisting human beings in the understanding of nature, illustrate the coexistence
of a scientist, engineer, painter, architect, scholar and writer within one person-and
thus are a paradigm of the synthesis of different kinds of learning.
The spirit of Leonardo in our time was made apparent by Michele Emmer, who dis-
cussed new trends in the relationship between art and science at the Vinci conference
[6]. It has been claimed that the increasing division between art and science since the
Renaissance is responsible for the present specialization and distinction of disciplines
and branches of knowledge. Some scientists, however, claim that the distinction be-
tween art and science does not exist and that the two fields simply express themselves
in different ways. In my view, the division has become more marked with time, particu-
larly at the social level, if perhaps less obviously at the epistemological level. In the
modern age, scientists have been assigned a leading role (perhaps not explicitly), and
artists, though acknowledged as important and admired for being able to express the
deepest feelings of human beings, have not been considered capable of any deep un-
derstanding of reality or change. In fact, it is difficult to capture and trace the antici-
patory role of artists in society. Scientists, as leaders of change, are considered antici-
patory by definition-not only in relation to nature, but also with respect to society.
It is increasingly important that all possibilities be explored in order to gain an un-
derstanding of the complexity of society and the world in general. This means using
the insights of artists and creative people, including women-and not just the opin-
ions of those traditionally acknowledged as playing a leading role in society (i.e. men
in general, scientists, politicians and others in power). In other words, we need the
insights of those who over the last 200 years have been on the periphery of the deci-
sion-making and gearing of society.
I believe that this is a very important point, over and beyond points relating to the
artistic expression of mathematics or the contribution of science to a better under-
standing or preservation of art-which were brilliantly demonstrated during in-depth
discussions at the conference.

Various terms can be used to describe the capacity of artists for insight and under-
standing, which seems to elude science. Prigogine, for example, describes Bohr's visit
to Hamlet's Kr6nberg Castle in Denmark: the external appearance is, of course, im-
portant and can be analyzed by the scientist, but equally important is the spirit of
Hamlet, expressed through Shakespeare's words, posing one of the greatest and most
difficult questions a human being can address [7].
In trying to understand complexity, we need the capabilities of people on the pe-
riphery of a primarily scientifically oriented society, especially if we are on the verge
of entering what Prigogine calls a new era in which "science makes us and our creativ-
ity the expression of a fundamental trend in the universe" [8].
An important point that emerged during the Vinci discussion concerned the fact
that a division between art and science has not occurred in some non-Western cul-
tures, such asJapan, India or China, which leads us to believe that the rapproche-
ment of art and science in the West is possible. In particular, we might look at the sci-
entific contributions developed in the past by Chinese, Hindu and Arab civilizations,
which in turn have contributed to scientific development in Western countries. Ac-
cording to Mushakoji, a conference participant fromJapan, science is not separate
from art because both science and art are related to everyday life [9]. Indeed, if both

20 Masini, Conference OverviewThis content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:41:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
science and art are interpretations of nature, and science is in constant dialogue with
nature, then the search for a base of knowledge that is wider than that of Western sci-
ence-and for a broadening of art's contribution to the dialogue between art and sci-
ence-may be especially important at a time when relations between nature and hu-
mans are so complex.
Differentiated paths of knowledge and wider sources may be necessary for the sur-
vival of humankind. It may be useful to have a variety of different maps relating to ev-
eryday life and solutions for survival. If we accept the idea that each culture creates
its own map of reality, it is obvious that many maps will better contribute to our un-
derstanding of complexity than just one will. The same applies to the "aborted dis-
coveries" mentioned by Susantha Goonatilake, whose potentials have as yet not been
realized [10].
Historically, though, other cultures have, in different ways, spilled into Western cul-
ture. For example, China's artistic and scientific achievements reached the West in a
variety of ways and contributed to its development. Needham has made the point in
some of his writings that Leonardo's era was influenced by Chinese learning, which
was highly advanced in areas such as physics, optics, acoustics and magnetism [11].
The basic hypothesis I wish to present for further discussion is the following: given
the present complexity of our world, a broader base of knowledge is required if we
are to understand the relationship between art and science and the ways in which
both can contribute to addressing, ultimately, the survival of humanity. Moreover, the
time may be ripe for a recapturing of the roots of the knowledge upon which eco-
nomic and, therefore, social development have thus far been based.
It might be possible to argue that it is precisely through the relationship between
science and art as the basis for human survival and development that cultures may
manage to find common concepts within the framework of different ways of life and
maps of reality. In other words, common ground may be found in the understanding
that all cultures need the contribution of other cultures.
The point to be stressed here is precisely that no culture is complete unto itself. It
is not a matter of counterposition or of alternatives to Western culture, but of under-
standing that all cultures will need to take elements from other cultures if they are to
be complete and able to survive. In my view, this sharing of cultures might lead over
time to mutual and peaceful coexistence and enrichment.
The International Workshop on Art and Science marked the beginning of a theo-
retical discussion that could lead to the survival and peaceful coexistence of a hu-
mankind that has historically followed a path of conflict and self-destruction.
The symbolic presence of the spirit of Leonardo and his contribution through sci-
ence and art may point to a different kind of epistemology and could perhaps provide
solutions to issues that seem to transcend our present capabilities of understanding.
ELEONORA BARBIERI MASINI
Via Bertoloni, 23
00197 Rome
Italy

References and Notes

1. The World Academy of Art and Science in not affiliated with the United Nations. It was founded in 1960 with its legal seat in
Switzerland. Its first president was Lord John Boyd, United Kingdom Nobel Laureate. The present president is Harlan Cleve-
land of the United States, who is director of the Hubert H. Humphrey Center at the University of Minnesota.

2. Complexity means uncertainty and what I, as a prospectivist, would call risk. The difference between uncertainty and risk has
been discussed at length by future, or "prospective," studies scholars, among them Yehezkel Dror and Donald Michael. In a situa-
tion of uncertainty, one is unable to locate the variables describing the system and therefore to assign them probabilities. In a situ-
ation of risk, one knows the variables and therefore can assign probabilities. One can also choose from among the variables (which
is where the element of risk arises) and consider the consequences of the choice. See Yehezkel Dror, Ventures in Policy Sciences (New
York: Elsevier, 1971); and Donald Michael, Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1973).

3. Richard Gregory, in Nodine and Fisher, eds., Perception and Pictorial Representation (Preeger, 1979). Richard Gregory is a
neuropsychologist at the Universities of Bristol and Oxford. Gregory discussed his experiments relating to similarities between
perception and science at the workshop in Vinci. He believes that science could gain much from an intuitive sense of the func-
tioning of things and concepts. Intuitive thinking is usually underplayed in schools and universities.

This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:41:45 UTC Masini, Conference Overview 21
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4. Gillo Dorfles, "Conflict between Art and Science," in the Art and Science special issue of World Futures 40, Nos. 1-3 (1994).
Dorfles argues that there may be a common root from which both art and science stem; if so, it is creativity. However, while ar-
tistic activity can be completely gratuitous, science aims to attain a specific end. All other attempts to find parallels between art
and science have failed.

5. Umberto Colombo, "Science and Art," in the Art and Science special issue of World Futures 40, Nos. 1-3 (1994). Umberto
Colombo is a scientist with specific experience in policy science. He is also a knowledgeable expert about different forms of art.

6. Michele Emmer, "Artistic and Mathematical Creativity," in the Art and Science special issue of World Futures 40, Nos. 1-3 (1994).

7. Ilya Prigogine, "Science, Reason and Passion," in the Art and Science special issue of World Futures 40, Nos. 1-3 (1994). Re-
printed in this special section of Leonardo 29, No. 1 (1996).

8. Prigogine [7].

9. Kinhide Mushakoji, "From Technology back to Humanism: Candid Questions of a Social Scientist," in the Art and Science spe-
cial issue of World Futures 40, Nos. 1-3 (1994).

10. Susantha Goonatilake, Aborted Discovery: Science and Creativity in the Third World (London: Zed Books, 1984). Goonatilake re-
fers in this book to the scientific discoveries of Chinese, Hindu and Maya cultures, which sometimes did not develop beyond
the historical period in which they emerged.

11. Joseph Needham, The Great Titration, Science and Society in East and West (London: Allen & Unwin, 1969).

22 Masini, Conference Overview

This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:41:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms