Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity Essay
To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment
Introduction
Works cited.
Art and science are two broad concepts that reflect development of the society and its culture. There is a debate concerning the role and status of these disciplines in modern society and their impact on culture. Both disciplines are influenced by social-historical conditions and social development which has a great impact on their current state. Science and art belong to one culture representing one stage of the social, economic and cultural development of the society.
Science and art belong to one culture because they reflect discoveries and experiments of the modern era. in both of them, there is knowledge and academic disciplines. Both of them are based on scientific knowledge and principles, rules and procedures. Both science and art belong to one culture and ‘driven’ by one process, creativity. Creativity is applied to theories and knowledge, terms and concepts studies by artists and scientists. Both of them belong to one culture, because they represent practical application of knowledge and creative skills. The process of creativity can be seen as a sphere of research that investigates application of knowledge and practical application of theories (Essays of an Information (a), 4). One might attempt to distinguish as science the endeavor to prepare nitrogen mustard with superior properties as a chemotherapeutic agent and as basic science some general study of cell metabolism. Thus, art uses its own concepts and techniques which help artists to create a conceptually new approach. For instance, the works of Dali and Picasso vividly portray a new vision and representation of the world around them. Artists and scientists discover and analyze the natural world and reflect its changes. For instance, great discoveries in natural sciences during the 19th century coincided with naturalistic movement in literature and art in general, Artists and scientists believe that before any explanation is advanced, an exhaustive collection of instances of a phenomenon should be compiled, out of which axioms regarding that phenomenon will somehow emerge, their correctness being ensured by the infallibility of the data (Essays of an Information (a), 6).
Art and science belong to one culture because both of them are based on scientific discovery and desire for something new. In practice, artists and scientists must usually be satisfied if they discover just some of the sufficient and some of the necessary conditions for the effects under investigation. During every historical period, artists and scientists suppose to reveal an ideal; one, which must be approached gradually, as the conditions sufficient for the effect to be manifested are widened. The knowledge of such conditions has a practical advantage, for it “frees the direction”, that is, it opens up new means for bringing about a desired effect. Both art and science champion experiment and observation against authority and tradition, as sources of knowledge. Although not new in its general outline, the extent and detail of arguments in favor of an experimental method put art and science well ahead of most rivals for the attention and respect of those concerned with scientific method (Essays of an Information (b), 7).
The main difference between these disciplines is that in science, prediction once made, its confirmation depends often on events over which the scientist can exercise no vestige of control. The real world having been constituted a “something,” the principle of intelligibility asserts man’s capacity, perhaps even his obligation to understand that something. Non-science does not make predictions and does not test hypotheses. It does not multiply and diversifies the range of possibilities humanly attainable, among which researchers choose those they will make realities. Artists and scientists know that common sense is imperfect, and for this reason they usually permit the survival even of relations that yield frequent unaccountable failures in prediction. Science and art giving answer question “Why” and “How” which help them to create a new knowledge and methods.
Both art and science are based on evidence and explanations, testing and improvements, evaluation and replication. Scientists and artists work with theoretical norms which are not necessarily self-evident, and so gain power to work with a far greater range of possibilities than before. Both art and science belong to one culture because they deal primarily with what is experienced by all mankind; science encompasses, in addition, what is experienced, in the laboratory, by but a few. This distinction seems unimportant: the special experience of scientists is potentially available to all willing to enter the laboratory. As it begins science judges the acceptability of subject matter much as common sense does. As science and art develop, as their view of the world becomes more highly elaborated, they make these judgments differently (Essays of an Information (a), 5).
In sum, art and science represent and belong to one culture based on creativity, historical development of society, research and scientific methods of discoveries. The main characteristic of science and art is new knowledge creation, new application of existing knowledge while other academic disciplines use this ready-made knowledge for their purposes.
Essays of an Information Scientist: Creativity, Delayed Recognition, and other Essays, 12 (1989a), 54. Current Contents , #43, p.3-7, 1989.
Essays of an Information Scientist: Crea tivity, Delayed Recognition, and other Essays, 12 (1989b), 296. Current Contents , #8, p.1-10, 1989.
Middle East Mosaic: Cross-Cultural Communication
Culture for Sale in Victoria and Albert Museums
Architecture as an Academic Discipline
Discovery and Justification by Kantorovich
Prediction Is Type of Pseudoscience
A Look at American Cultural Values Through Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture
Japanese Popular Culture: Anime, Video Games, and the Film Industry
The Southwest in American Culture
Sneaker Culture Overview
Hofstede’s Dimension of Culture: Analysis and Critique
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2021, August 10). Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-and-science-one-culture-or-two-difference-and-similarity/
"Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity." IvyPanda , 10 Aug. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/art-and-science-one-culture-or-two-difference-and-similarity/.
IvyPanda . (2021) 'Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity'. 10 August.
IvyPanda . 2021. "Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity." August 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-and-science-one-culture-or-two-difference-and-similarity/.
1. IvyPanda . "Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity." August 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-and-science-one-culture-or-two-difference-and-similarity/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity." August 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/art-and-science-one-culture-or-two-difference-and-similarity/.
The relationship between science and art
Often seen as opposites, science and art both depend on observation and synthesis.
Words by Victoria Kingston average reading time 4 minutes 24 March 2015
W hen C P Snow, the British novelist and physical chemist, wrote in 1959 that “the intellectual life of the whole of Western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups”, he was talking of the differences between scientists and literary intellectuals. But he could as easily have been talking about science and the visual arts.
To many, science embodies the rational and analytical end of human experience, while art comes from the empathic and expressive. Science can prove truths to us, while art can only make us feel them.
These differences are compounded as science becomes responsible for the official narrative of our lives, through medicine and genetics, while contemporary art retains a mystical 'outsider' status, both in its intellectual obscurity and the inflated prices of the international art market. Nevertheless, where science meets art and the two work together, the result can be extraordinarily productive, as horizons are broadened and gaps in our understanding of both are filled.
Anatomical fugitive sheets first appeared in the 16th century. They are artistic illustrations of the human body that display internal organs and structures.
In the 20th century, science has revolutionised art’s means of production, from the introduction of fast-drying polymer-based acrylic paints in the 1960s, to the ubiquity of computer-based image generation today. Science has also offered us a key to some of the traditional mysteries of artistic practice. For example, Dr John Tchalenko's 'painter's eye' project attempted to demystify the way in which a painter transfers the image of a model to paper by tracking eye and hand movements to discover the length of an artist’s visual memory: the time during which he or she can maintain the image in the mind as it is transferred to paper or canvas.
Science also provides aesthetic inspiration. In 1951, at the Festival of Britain, the Festival Pattern Group combined post-war optimism about both science and design . Textile, wallpaper, ceramic and other material designs were produced based on recent developments in X-ray crystallography, a technique that reveals the complex internal structure of chemical and biological substances. The designs pervaded the Festival, on London’s South Bank, including the wallpaper of the Regatta restaurant, but in the absence of mass production the styles never became widely popular.
MORE: Freediving seen through the art of film and the science of physiology
In return for such advances, artists have often lent their services to promote the understanding of science. As anatomy became increasingly important to medicine in the 18th century, but cadavers to examine were in short supply, wax model making came into its own as a means of instructing both medics and the general public in the workings of the human machine.
Wax model of a female head depicting life and death.
Joseph Towne, the official model-maker at Guy’s Hospital in London, made over 1,000 anatomical models, some of which were on display in Exquisite Bodies , in his 50 years at the hospital. Even today sculptors like Eleanor Crook produce educational models that show in three dimensions what photography can't.
We can now see what blood vessels, vitamins and cancer cells look like. Sometimes this requires direct collaboration between scientists and artists. Dave McCarthy and Annie Cavanagh produced an image of a fly on sugar crystals for which McCarthy operated an electron microscope to produce a black-and-white image, after which the colour was added by Cavanagh.
A fly on sugar crystals by Dave McCarthy and Annie Cavanagh.
Though such images can be both beautiful and instructive, adding artificial colour to scientific images can be controversial. Luke Jerram's series of blown-glass sculptures of viruses such as HIV and H1N1 present the microbes as transparent, devoid of any of the colour.
From Luke Jerram’s series of blown-glass sculptures of viruses.
Jerram (who is himself colour-blind) feels that the artificial and garish colouring of images communicates unnecessary fear. His elegant and complex structures confer not only simplicity, but also some kind of beauty to widely reviled pathogens.
Science and art both rely on observation and synthesis: taking what is seen and creating something new from it. Our society could hardly exist without either, but when they come together our culture is enriched, sometimes in unexpected ways.
About the author
Victoria Kingston
Victoria Kingston is a curator, historian and writer.
Stay in the know
Sign up to our newsletter to find out what’s on, read our latest stories and get involved.
All our newsletters
Tick this box if you’re happy to receive other emails about Wellcome Collection, upcoming events and exhibitions and/or other relevant opportunities.
By clicking subscribe, you agree to receive this newsletter. You can unsubscribe any time. For information about how we handle your data, please read our privacy notice .
— 1884–86 Georges Seurat (French, 1859–1891) Oil on canvas 83 3/4 x 121 1/4 in. Helen Birch Bartlett Memorial Collection, 1926.224
Science and art naturally overlap. Both are a means of investigation. Both involve ideas, theories , and hypotheses that are tested in places where mind and hand come together—the laboratory and studio. Artists, like scientists, study—materials, people, culture, history, religion, mythology— and learn to transform information into something else. In ancient Greece, the word for art was techne , from which technique and technology are derived—terms that are aptly applied to both scientific and artistic practices.
Art and Scientific Investigation in Early-European Art Leonardo da Vinci, painter and draftsman of the High Renaissance , is best known as an artist whose works were informed by scientific investigation. Leonardo observed the world closely, studying physiology and anatomy in order to create convincing images of the human form. He believed that the moral and ethical meanings of his narrative paintings would emerge only through the accurate representation of human gesture and expression. For this Christian artist, science and art were different paths that led to the same destination—a higher spiritual truth. His Sketch of Uterus with Foetus (c. 1511–13) is one of several thousand drawings he produced in his lifetime in which artistic and scientific investigation are bound together. These extraordinary drawings are revered as examples of the Renaissance concept of the integration of all disciplines .
The Astronomer (1668) by Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer is another example of the profound connection between science and art. The people of 17th-century Netherlands had an exploratory spirit. Equally interested in this world and the larger universe, the familiar and the exotic, they were intent on looking and investigating. It was here in the early 17th century that the microscope and telescope were first developed. Vermeer’s painting celebrates an astronomer. Yet it equally celebrates the work of artists and the materials of this world. The painting hanging on the back wall was created by a local artist; the Middle Eastern carpet on the table was crafted by a foreign artist; Vermeer’s own paints (ground mineral pigments mixed with linseed oil) and brushes were produced by local artisans . The globe at which the astronomer gazes evidences the link between science and art most pointedly, for it demonstrates this astronomer’s—and his culture’s—combined interest in finely crafted objects and scientific systems, such as cartography and astronomy.
The Science of Color in 19th-Century Painting In the late-19th and early-20th centuries, the physiological, psychological , and phenomenal effects of color and light were of primary concern to Impressionist and Post-Impressionist artists such as Edgar Degas (1834–1917), Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890), Auguste Renoir (1841–1919), Paul Gauguin (1843–1903), and Claude Monet (1840–1926) . Considered by many to be the greatest nature painter in modern-art history, Monet suggested that our sense of our physical environment changes continuously with our shifting perceptions of light and color. In On the Bank of the Seine, Bennecourt (1868), a painting of his wife-to-be, Monet captures a fleeting “impression” of the landscape through loose brushwork and composition . His impression is pre- cognitive —before the mind labels, identifies, and converts what it sees into memory. Tellingly, the woman in the painting looks not at the house and trees across the river, but down at their wavering, upside-down reflections in the river, a perspective that echoes the process of perception itself. Images in the form of light enter the eye, an orb with a nerve-sensitive background. As light penetrates, it is inverted and projected onto the back of that light-sensitive orb, where the brain processes the information. Monet’s painting captures the vibration between impression and perception—the contingent moment. It conveys a sense of trembling as the light and color of the landscape shift and time passes.
A number of years after Monet’s Bennecourt , Georges Seurat began painting A Sunday on La Grande Jatte — 1884 (1884–1886) (above). As an art student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, he studied the physics of color, and this enormous painting is an exercise in color theory. Unlike Renaissance and Dutch artists, Seurat and Monet did not mix their own paint. They benefited from breakthroughs by French chemists in the early 19th century who had invented both premixed paints packaged in tubes and synthetic pigments, such as ultramarine blue, which previously had been made from ground lapis lazuli and was, therefore, the most expensive pigment. Neither Seurat nor Monet, with little money in their pockets, could have created their blue-filled, experimental works without the scientific breakthroughs earlier that century.
Using these new paints, Seurat invented a technique called Pointillism to investigate how adjacent colors blend when taken in by the eye. Up close, the surface of his painting contains thousands of painted dots and dashes, discrete areas of color. But Seurat placed these dots of complementary colors next to each other—purple and yellow, orange and blue, green and red—so that at a distance they interact to create vibrant blended colors and larger, whole forms. Carrying his scientific approach to color theory to the edges of the image, Seurat represented the range of the visible spectrum in the painting’s border dominated by red and blue.
20th-Century Art and Science Pablo Picasso's (1881–1973) portrait of art dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler (1910) combines Monet’s ideas about the contingency of time and Seurat’s theory about the perception of discrete elements. Here, Picasso breaks up the figure and objects in his composition in the style known as Cubism . Instead of rendering his subjects as distinctly recognizable forms, he paints them from several points of view. Kahnweiler’s head, suit, watch fob , and hands, as well as the still life to the left and the decorated wall behind, remain identifiable, but these elements have been broken up into flattened planes and rearranged across the picture surface. Painted just a few years after Albert Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, which asserts the contingent nature of observing reality, Picasso’s work similarly illustrates the elusive presence of his subject—Mr. Kahnweiler. Picasso’s Cubist painting style, like studying Einstein’s scientific theory, requires careful analysis, but it rewards the viewer’s effort with perception and understanding.
The invention of photography in the middle of the 19th century was a technological wonder—artistically and scientifically. The practice of oxidizing and fixing images on light-sensitive paper or a metal plate posed a great challenge to painters, who had historically been charged with the task of providing their culture with images of itself and the world around them. People believed this new medium could represent the world accurately and more quickly. Ansel Adams (1902–1984) one of the most extraordinary photographers of the North American landscape, used his camera to capture the spirit and beauty of the American West. His majestic vistas of mountains and rivers, such as The Tetons and the Snake River, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming (1942), embraced the bond between man and nature while recording with astonishing technical accuracy the phenomenal effects of light and atmosphere.
Today, light-and-space artist James Turrell seeks to link the terrestrial and celestial realms in his work at Roden Crater , a natural cinder volcano situated on the southwestern edge of the Painted Desert in northern Arizona. Since 1972, Turrell has been transforming the crater into a large-scale artwork by subtly manipulating and reshaping its form. Like Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci did, Turrell uses his knowledge of engineering , and, like Seurat and Monet, he employs his knowledge of the effects of light and space. When Turrell completes his gigantic project, visitors standing in the middle of the crater on the reflective material with which the artist has lined it will feel suspended between the sky and earth.
There has long been a connection between art and science, one that can be traced back to the Egyptian pyramids . History proves that the two disciplines cannot exist without each other, enduring in constantly changing and evolving relationships.
. . Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.0 or higher.
Arts Vs Science Essay
In a world brimming with diverse disciplines, none sparks a more spirited debate than the comparison between arts and science. The realms of artistic expression and scientific inquiry stand as two distinct pillars of human knowledge and creativity.
This essay embarks on a journey to dissect the complexities of this age-old dichotomy, unraveling the unique characteristics of both domains and exploring the potential synergies and tensions that arise when arts and science converge or diverge. As we delve into the profound interplay of creativity, logic, imagination, and empirical inquiry, we aim to shed light on the nuances that shape our understanding of these essential dimensions of human intellect.
Table of Contents
How to Write An Essay About Science vs. Art
Collect ideas about the topic.
Before we set off, let’s gather some cool ideas about arts and science:
Creativity Unleashed: Arts are all about imagination and creating beautiful things, like paintings, sculptures, and music.
Expressing Emotions: Through arts, people can show how they feel – like painting a picture to express happiness or writing a song about love.
Communication: Arts help us communicate ideas and stories that sometimes words can’t explain.
Understanding the World: Science helps us understand how things work in the world – from the stars in the sky to the tiny cells in our bodies.
Problem Solving: Scientists use their skills to solve puzzles and answer big questions, like finding ways to cure diseases or inventing new technologies.
Exploring and Discovering: Science is like exploring new lands. It’s exciting to find out things that nobody knew before.
Creating Essay Outline
1. Introduction
Introduce the topic of arts and science and liken it to having two amazing games to choose from.
2. Arts: Creativity Unleashed
Explore the creative aspects of arts, including painting, sculpture, and music, and how they let imaginations run wild.
3. Arts: Expressing Emotions
Discuss how arts are a medium to express feelings and emotions, using examples of paintings and music.
4. Arts: Communication
Explain how arts help us communicate complex ideas and stories that might be hard to put into words.
5. Science: Understanding the World
Dive into the world of science, where understanding everything from stars to cells opens up new horizons.
6. Science: Problem Solving
Highlight how scientists tackle challenges and solve problems, making life better through their inventions and discoveries.
7. Science: Exploring and Discovering
Portray science as an adventure, where discoveries are like finding hidden treasures that expand our knowledge.
8. The Harmony of Arts and Science
Emphasize that arts and science aren’t really enemies – they can work together to create something even more amazing.
9. Balancing Act
Acknowledge the importance of both arts and science and how they contribute to a well-rounded world.
10. Final Thoughts
Sum up the main points and express appreciation for both arts and science as pillars of our diverse and fascinating world.
Writing the Essay On Science vs. Art
Arts: creativity unleashed:.
Imagine a world where you can paint the sky any color you want or create magical tunes that dance through the air. That’s the world of arts – a canvas where creativity knows no bounds. Artists use their imagination to paint breathtaking pictures, sculpt masterpieces from stone, and compose melodies that touch our hearts.
Arts: Expressing Emotions:
Arts are like the feelings you get when you play your favorite game – you can’t explain them, but you know they’re there. Artists use paintings to capture happiness, sculptures to freeze moments of joy, and songs to express love and friendship. It’s like turning emotions into beautiful masterpieces.
Arts: Communication:
Arts are like a secret language that everyone understands. You can tell tales of ancient times through paintings, show the bond between people through sculptures, and share dreams through music. It’s like writing stories with colors, shapes, and melodies instead of words.
Science: Understanding the World:
Now, let’s switch gears and zoom into the world of science. Imagine looking up at the stars and wondering how they twinkle. Science is like having a special pair of glasses that lets you understand everything around you. Scientists study stars, cells, and everything in between to uncover the mysteries of the universe.
Science: Problem Solving:
Scientists are like detectives, solving the puzzles of life. They find ways to fight diseases, invent cool gadgets, and make our world better. It’s like solving a tricky level in a game, but the prize is a healthier, happier world.
Science: Exploring and Discovering:
Imagine being an explorer in a new land, finding treasures that nobody has seen before. Science is like exploring the unknown, and discovering hidden wonders. Scientists venture into the depths of oceans, unravel the secrets of cells, and journey into space to find new planets. It’s like unlocking new levels in the game of knowledge.
The Harmony of Arts and Science:
But wait, here’s a secret – arts and science aren’t really enemies. They’re like two best friends who make the game even more exciting. Imagine using science to understand how colors mix in a painting or how vibrations create music. Arts can be even more magical when they dance with science.
Balancing Act:
Just like in a game, where you need different skills to win, our world needs both arts and science to shine. It’s like having two main characters in a story, each with their own strengths. Arts bring beauty and emotions, while science brings understanding and solutions. Together, they create a well-rounded world.
So, as we wrap up our exploration of arts and science, let’s remember that they’re both incredible parts of our world. It’s like having two amazing games to play, each with its own set of challenges and victories. Whether we’re painting on a canvas or uncovering the mysteries of the universe, both arts and science make our world colorful, fascinating, and full of wonder.
Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.
Related Posts:
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Site Content
Essays on art and science.
Eric R. Kandel
Columbia University Press
Pub Date: March 2024
ISBN: 9780231212564
Format: Hardcover
List Price: $26.95 £22.00
Shipping Options
Purchasing options are not available in this country.
ISBN: 9780231559454
Format: E-book
List Price: $25.99 £22.00
EPUB via the Columbia UP App
PDF via the Columbia UP App
Anything Eric R. Kandel says about neuroscience or the relationship between art and neuroscience is noteworthy. He is not only brilliant at explaining difficult and complex scientific ideas and data in simple language but also well-informed about—and sympathetic to—twentieth-century art, and avails himself of an impressive range of art-historical literature. Nancy Princenthal, author of Unspeakable Acts: Women, Art, and Sexual Violence in the 1970s, and Joseph E. LeDoux, Henry And Lucy Moses Professor of Science, New York University
A lively, erudite inquiry into the experience of art. Kirkus Reviews
Eric R. Kandel’s ‘Essays on Art and Science’ is a fascinating, thought-provoking read that beautifully articulates the complex interplay between our brain’s inner workings and our emotional responses to art. It’s a testament to Kandel’s expertise and ability to make science approachable and relevant to our everyday experiences with art. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the profound ways in which art and science intersect to define our perception of the world. Mental Health Affairs
Read an excerpt in Book Post
Read an excerpt "The Creative Brain" from as published in The Transmitter
Read Eye of the Beholder: Perception of Art and the Brain
About the Author
Neuroscience and Biopsychology
Neuropsychology
Fine Arts and Art History
Architecture and Design
Asian and Pacific Studies
Business and Economics
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
Industrial Chemistry
Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
Jewish Studies
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publish your article
The role of authors
Promoting your article
Abstracting & indexing
Publishing Ethics
Why publish with De Gruyter
How to publish with De Gruyter
Our book series
Our subject areas
Your digital product at De Gruyter
Contribute to our reference works
Product information
Tools & resources
Product Information
Promotional Materials
Orders and Inquiries
FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
Repository Policy
Free access policy
Open Access agreements
Database portals
For Authors
Customer service
People + Culture
Journal Management
How to join us
Working at De Gruyter
Mission & Vision
De Gruyter Foundation
De Gruyter Ebound
Our Responsibility
Partner publishers
Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.
Essays on Art and Science
Eric R. Kandel
X / Twitter
Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.
Language: English
Publisher: Columbia University Press
Copyright year: 2024
Audience: General/trade;
Other: 118 color figures
Published: March 26, 2024
ISBN: 9780231559454
A peer-reviewed online journal
18 Theses on Art and Science
Text: Peter Tepe | Section: On ‘Art and Science’
Abstract: Peter Tepe uses the brochure RESISTANCE COGNITION [WIDERSTAND ERKENNTNIS] to express theoretical thoughts on the topic of Art and Science . Both the arts and the sciences reach creative achievements which involve overcoming different kinds of resistance. The empirical sciences (the focus of the text) primarily solve cognitive problems: Aspects of reality are described and, by means of theoretical constructions, explained. The arts, on the other hand, primarily deal with problems of artistic creation within the context of art programmes based on specific values.
To mark its 15th anniversary, the Schering Foundation has published the brochure titled RESISTANCE COGNITION. Discussions with personalities from science and art [ WIDERSTAND ERKENNTNIS. Gespräche mit Persönlichkeiten aus Wissenschaft und Kunst ]. Several texts emphasise that in science as well as in art, the realisation of something new involves overcoming resistance. This is certainly true. My intervention will first of all propose further differentiation when thinking about creativity in the sciences, the arts and other areas of life; more theses will be added later. Other aspects mentioned in the brochure worth reading are left out here.
Introductory quotes
The biophysicist Ilme Schlichting writes:
“[One] challenge within the scientific field is to pursue one’s own research interests without being misled by others […]. Too many thoughts about the future or one’s retirement can have a paralysing effect. In any case, one only realises in hindsight whether a decision was right or wrong. I encounter an extremely delightful form of resistance in my research topics, to which I develop a personal relationship.” (8)
Nobel Laureate Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard expresses a similar opinion:
“In my experience, it is indispensable in both science and art to believe in one’s own concept and to enforce it against any resistance. This may be risky, but worth it if you have a new, original and forward-looking idea. Creativity, a combination of productivity and originality, is not very common in science; many researchers tend to rely on the mainstream, which is safer. […] Most of them base their projects on career considerations, meaning they do what is expected of them and choose the path of least resistance. This is an attitude that seldom results in anything truly new.” (14)
Neuroscientist Ivana Nikić-Spiegel answers the question
“What do you think constitutes an outstanding scientist?”: “Thirst for knowledge, a sceptical mind and infinite patience, which one has to show for the sometimes extremely tenacious processes in the laboratory. What outsiders don’t suspect: Scientists require a lot of perseverance and diligence, as experiments are often frustrating and gruelling at first.” (18)
A central category in the writings of the science-historian Hans-Jörg Rheinberger is “the resistance of the material – something which both artists and researchers struggle with alike” (28). Artistic and scientific practice
“are both experimental fields that require breaking new ground and initiating things that have never been done before. In the studio as well as in the laboratory, you work your way through the material, ideally encountering connections and phenomena that you would never have dreamed of. Presuppositions are shattered, and one experiences something fundamentally new.” (28)
The artist Hiwa K writes:
“The work becomes interesting to me at the point where the material causes me difficulties and offers resistance; when something is stuck inside that has to be lured out. Then I must do everything it requires of me and, like an obstetrician, bring to light what was not visible before.” (16)
Proposals for differentiation
My first suggestions relate to the sciences. The scientists quoted are active in disciplines which commit to principles of empirical-rational thought — the empirical sciences. They are dealing with aspects of reality of any kind; I exclude logic and mathematics in this context.
Thesis 1 : Principles of empirical-rational thought can be applied in all disciplines that deal with aspects of reality, e.g. also in the humanities. However, not all scientific disciplines follow these principles. Furthermore, only some of these disciplines — not all — operate in a laboratory.
Thesis 2 : The basic form for great innovation of an empirical science begins with the development of a new theory on a specific aspect of reality. This new theory, according to cognitive criteria, is superior to the pre-existing theories with which it competes. Such a theory has, for example, a higher degree of explanatory power than the other theories, as well as better consistency with the established facts.
Thesis 3 : In order to build an innovative theory of this kind, the psychological belief “in one’s own concept” and the will to “enforce it against any resistance” is necessary. One must “pursue one’s own research interests without being misled by others”. Renewers of this kind are “not very common in science; many researchers tend to rely on the mainstream” i.e. on the work based on already established theories. Anyone who strives to implement a truly innovative approach undoubtedly has more resistance to overcome than someone who aims for smaller advances in knowledge within the framework of an established theory, which of course is also important. To “break new ground and initiate things that have never been done before” requires a certain attitude that is relatively rare. In the case of success “presuppositions are shattered, and one experiences something fundamentally new”.
On the other hand, it must also be considered that not everyone who believes in their own concept and has the will to enforce it against any resistance pursues a theoretical programme whose realisation actually leads to empirical-rational advances in knowledge. It can also be a research dead-end, or an approach that is inferior to the present one. Not all thoughts pursued with great commitment are original and forward-looking.
“Thirst for knowledge, a sceptical mind and infinite patience” are often also prevalent among those who work within the framework of already established theories. A certain “resistance of the material” with which the researcher struggles can be found in all of these forms. Now I turn to art.
Thesis 4 : The basic form for innovation in art is not the development of a new theory about a specific aspect of reality that is superior, in terms of cognitive criteria, to the pre-existing theories with which it competes. In art, the basic form for great innovation is rather the development of a new art programme, opening up many possibilities for implementation and deviating significantly from pre-existing programmes. By an art programme I mean general art goals of a certain kind, which enable a variety of realisations in individual works or projects; these goals do not have to be formulated explicitly; they can also be implicitly effective. The concept of progress is not applicable here, or only in special cases requiring particular analysis.
Thesis 5 : In order to establish an innovative art programme, the psychological belief “in one’s own concept” and the will to “enforce it against any resistance” is also necessary. One must pursue their own artistic interests “without allowing oneself to be led astray by others”. Renewers of this kind are not to be found on every corner of the art world either, but they probably appear somewhat more frequently here than in the academic world. Most artists likewise “tend to rely on the mainstream”, i.e. on work within the framework of already established art programmes, which can lead to important innovations on a smaller scale. To “break new ground and initiate things that have never been done before” requires a certain attitude in art that is relatively rare.
On the other hand, however, also here one must take into account that not everyone who believes in their own artistic concept and has the will to pursue it against resistance follows an art programme that is actually innovative. Not every art project pursued with great commitment is original and forward-looking. Such a commitment can also be found among those who carry out their work within the framework of already established art programmes. A certain “resistance of the material” which artists struggle with must be overcome in all these forms. For many (but not all) artists, the following applies: “The work only becomes interesting to me then, when the material causes me difficulties and offers resistance”.
Cognitive and value-based innovations
In the next step, I put the discussion about creativity and innovation into a larger context:
Thesis 6 : Creative individuals who promote new ideas and try to enforce them against great resistance do not only appear in the sciences and arts but, ultimately, in all areas of life: Craft, industry, ideology, politics, gender relations, sport, etc. The following applies to all: in a particular area, a particular regulation is established to solve particular problems; this has proven worthwhile — at least for some time — and its application has become implicit for many who are active in that area. Now, if an attempt is made to replace the old regulation with a new one, it is to be expected that its implementation will only succeed if we are prepared to engage with overcoming many obstacles. With some modifications, the formulated theses can, therefore, be transferred to other areas of life which I will not go into at this point. Creativity is not exclusive to the arts and sciences.
Thesis 7 : A distinction must be made between innovations in solving cognitive — and their sometimes related technical — problems, and innovations whose primary aim is to enforce certain values. The development of a new political programme is driven by a related set of values which determine what is most important in this dimension — contrary to what was previously thought. Accordingly, the development of a new art programme is driven by a certain set of values which determine what is most important in art practice — contrary to what was previously thought. This difference must be observed on a theoretical level: Whilst the various creative processes do reveal some common elements and structures, there are also important differences specific to each area.
About art and science
In the next step, I focus on the relationship between art and science and consider how general statements about this relationship can be made. In art generally, and in the visual arts in particular, various different art programmes have been and are still being pursued; cf. thesis 4. Artists working expressionistically, for example, pursue a different art programme to those working with a naturalistic approach.
Thesis 8 : When making statements about art, it is a mistake to orient oneself to one specific art programme in an open or covert way, neglecting other art options. This mistake can be avoided by utilising a formal concept of art when defining the relationship between art and science in general terms. This means that art is always the realisation of a certain art programme that can be pursued at different degrees of awareness; the content of the different art programmes, i.e., the general art goals, vary.
The approach described in Thesis 8 can be applied to the sciences: although for the sake of simplicity I shall continue to restrict myself to the empirical sciences.
Thesis 9 : Different science programmes have been and continue to be pursued in those disciplines with a claim to scientific knowledge of aspects of reality. By a science programme I mean general epistemological goals of a certain kind, which enable a variety of realisations in individual scientific projects; these goals do not have to be formulated explicitly; they can also be implicitly effective.
In the next step, I will make a differentiation in order to arrive at the most concise statements possible about the relationship between art and science.
Thesis 10 : A distinction has to be made between two types of past and present scientific disciplines relating to aspects of reality. Whilst the first type is based on principles of empirical-rational thought, the second type is not, or only to a very limited extent: here, principles are used that are more or less in great conflict with those of empirical-rational thought.
According to Theses 8 and 9, it makes sense to first of all interpret the question surrounding the relationship between art and science in this way: What is the relationship between art (understood as the realisation of this or that art programme) and science (understood as the realisation of this or that science programme)? One can go down this path, but I do not consider it particularly productive, as the difference between the two types of scientific disciplines relating to aspects of reality, which are in conflict with one another, is neglected. Therefore, the following path looks more promising.
Thesis 11 : It is proposed to split the initial question on the relationship between art and science relating to aspects of reality into two questions. Question 1: How does art relate to those scientific disciplines that are based on principles of empirical-rational thought? Question 2: How does art relate to those scientific disciplines that are not or only to a limited extent based on principles of empirical-rational thought?
In this text, I will limit myself to the first question. Thesis 4 already includes a first response to this question, referring to the aspect of great innovation. Both art and empirical science reach creative achievements: while new art programmes are developed on the one hand, new theories on aspects of reality, representing empirical-rational advances in knowledge, are developed on the other.
On the relationship between art and empirical science
Thesis 12 : The empirical sciences solve cognitive problems, epistemological problems of a certain kind: The examined aspects of reality are described as precisely as possible according to certain criteria (which are not further discussed here), and the findings are explained with help of theoretical constructions. An innovative empirical theory can better explain its respective aspect of reality according to certain criteria than the pre-existing theories with which it competes.
Thesis 13 : The arts also reach cognitive achievements — to varying degrees — which cannot be determined in detail at this point. Here, however, we are primarily dealing with solving problems of artistic creation that are related to various art programmes which, themselves, are based on art-related values; cf. Thesis 7. Declaring a found object (objet trouvé) an art phenomenon can be seen as a borderline case in solving a problem of artistic creation.
Thesis 14 : Thus, the basic difference between art and empirical science is that both areas primarily set out to solve different problems: where one focuses on problems of artistic creation, the other deals with cognitive problems of a descriptive-determinative, but above all theoretic-explanatory nature. However, this does not exclude the possibility that an arts practice can also encounter cognitive problems and an empirical scientific practice can also encounter problems of artistic creation; these interrelations require a separate analysis.
On the relationship between science-related art and empirical science
Finally, I will briefly address the relationship between science-related artists (i.e., artists who base their work on theories/methods/results of any scientific field) and the empirical sciences. Sentences from the conversation with Rheinberger, which refer to the exhibition Eavesdropping Fish [Fischen lauschen], serve as a starting point:
“The Swiss media artist Hannes Rickli had latched onto the primary data stream of biologists exploring marine life near Spitzbergen. In this way he was able to take scientific video and audio recordings out of their context and transform them into an artistic research object. With the help of this moment of alienation, he succeeded in eliciting impressive aesthetic effects and new insights from the material.” (28)
Thesis 15 : Rickli draws on video and audio recordings made in a scientific context: he then uses this scientific material to solve certain problems of artistic creation within the framework of his art programme. He thus represents one variant of the science-related artist.
In principle, I am open to concepts of artistic research. When reading relevant texts, however, it has become apparent that the term is used in various contexts that are often not distinguished from one another. Therefore, if no clarification is made, the question “What exactly do you understand by artistic research?” becomes relevant. Thesis 15 now makes it possible to grasp one of these meanings more precisely.
Thesis 16 : The transfer of scientific video and audio recordings into a project of artistic research can be understood as the use of these recordings for a project of artistic creation supported by a particular art programme. Rickli thus succeeded in “eliciting impressive aesthetic effects from the material”.
But does Rickli also arrive at new knowledge? The answer depends on what exactly is meant by knowledge — also here, there is a need for conceptual clarification and a reference to the fact that many different things are referred to as knowledge.
Thesis 17 : If one interprets the concept of cognition to be scientific thought of an empirical-rational nature and its pre-forms in everyday life, then the following applies: The claim that a science-related project of artistic creation reaches new insights in the empirical-rational sense — insights which are directly relevant to the sciences dealing with such aspects of reality — requires examination in each individual case. Such a gaining of insights may be conceivable, but in many cases seems rather unlikely. The following constellation, however, is probably more likely: a science-related project of artistic creation dealing with certain phenomena can help a scientist who is also concerned with these phenomena to come to new ideas, the further pursuit of which then leads to an improved or even completely new theory. It would be worthwhile to examine more closely whether there are cases of this kind and, if so, what the individual effect of art is in encouraging the gain of new scientific knowledge. Furthermore, Rheinberger addresses another way in which science-related art benefits science: “It is important for science to create such points of contact. This opens up the gates to a universe that otherwise remains rather alien to laypersons.” (28)
Thesis 18 : In some cases, science-related art provides the layperson, who may not be able to find direct access to a certain science, with a first access to a universe that seems strange to them.
This is one reasonable option amongst many others.
Picture above the text: Cover picture of the magazine: Resistance Cognition [Widerstand Erkenntnis].
Translated by Rebecca Grundmann.
How to cite this article
Peter Tepe (2020): 18 Theses on Art and Science. w/k–Between Science & Art Journal . https://doi.org/10.55597/e5977
Artistic Research
cooperation between artists and scientists
Empirical Science
science-related artist
Prof. Dr. Peter Tepe | Herausgeber Der Herausgeber ist für die Gesamtplanung zuständig und koordiniert die drei Bereiche. Außerdem wirbt er neue Beiträger und Kooperationspartner an und beteiligt sich an der redaktionellen Betreuung der eintreffenden Beiträge. Peter Tepe ist Philosoph, Literaturwissenschaftler und bildender Künstler. Er ist auch nach dem Ende seiner Dienstzeit im Institut für Germanistik und im Institut für Philosophie an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf verankert, betreut noch viele Doktoranden und leitet weiterhin den von ihm 1987 begründeten interdisziplinären Studien- und Forschungsschwerpunkt Mythos, Ideologie & Methoden.
Be First to Comment
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Privacy Overview
Privacy preference center, consent management.
Privacy Policy
Art Vs Science: An In-Depth Comparison
Art and science – two distinctly different fields that employ opposite approaches, right? While art relies on subjective inspiration and emotion, science utilizes objective logic and reason. But it’s not quite so black and white.
If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer to your question: Art and science differ primarily in their methodology and goals . Science follows the scientific method to make testable claims about the natural world. Art allows free expression of ideas and emotion through creative mediums.
However, the two disciplines often complement and inspire each other.
In this comprehensive guide, we will compare and contrast art and science across various dimensions – methodologies, aims, thought processes, values, language and more. You’ll gain new insight into the similarities as well as differences between these multifaceted fields.
Let’s dive in to unravel the complex relationship between art and science.
Methodology and Validation
When comparing art and science, it is important to understand the different methodologies and validation processes that are involved in each field.
Methodology
In art, the methodology often involves a more subjective and creative approach. Artists rely on their imagination, intuition, and personal experiences to create their work. They may experiment with different techniques, materials, and styles to express their ideas.
The process of creating art is often seen as a form of self-expression and exploration.
On the other hand, science follows a more systematic and objective methodology. Scientists use the scientific method, which involves making observations, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data.
The goal of science is to uncover knowledge and understanding about the natural world through empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
In art, validation is often subjective and based on individual opinions and interpretations. The value and significance of a piece of art may vary from person to person. Critics, curators, and art enthusiasts play a role in validating and recognizing the artistic merit of a work.
However, there is no standardized or universally accepted validation process in the art world.
On the other hand, science relies on peer review and replication to validate its findings. Scientific research is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by experts in the field before it can be accepted as valid. The process of peer review ensures that scientific studies are credible and reliable.
Additionally, scientific findings need to be reproducible by other researchers in order to be considered valid.
It is important to note that while art and science have different methodologies and validation processes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are areas where art and science intersect, such as in scientific illustration, data visualization, and even in the creative thinking process involved in scientific research.
For more information on the scientific method, you can visit Scientific American .
Goals and Objectives
When it comes to the fields of art and science, it is important to understand that they have distinct goals and objectives. While both aim to expand knowledge and understanding, they do so in different ways and with different purposes in mind.
Art Goals and Objectives
Art, in its various forms, is primarily focused on self-expression, creativity, and aesthetic appreciation. Artists strive to evoke emotions, challenge perceptions, and make a statement through their work. The goals of art often include:
Creating something visually appealing or thought-provoking
Conveying a message or story
Eliciting emotions or sparking introspection
Exploring new ideas and pushing boundaries
Artists may not always have a clear-cut objective in mind, as the process of creation can be an organic and intuitive one. The beauty of art lies in its subjective nature, allowing for multiple interpretations and personal connections.
Science Goals and Objectives
Science, on the other hand, is driven by a quest for knowledge, understanding, and practical applications. Scientists employ systematic methods and rigorous testing to investigate the natural world and uncover facts. The goals of science often include:
Exploring and explaining natural phenomena
Developing theories and models to explain observations
Testing hypotheses and conducting experiments
Improving technologies and finding practical solutions
Unlike art, science strives to be objective and reproducible, relying on evidence and logical reasoning. The scientific method ensures that theories and conclusions are based on data and can be independently verified.
It is important to note that while art and science have different goals and objectives, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are instances where art and science intersect and complement each other.
For example, scientific illustrations and medical animations use artistic techniques to communicate complex scientific concepts in a visually engaging manner.
Understanding the goals and objectives of art and science helps us appreciate the unique contributions each field makes to society. Both have the power to inspire, inform, and enrich our lives in their own ways.
Thought Processes
When comparing art and science, one of the key differences lies in their thought processes. Art is often driven by creativity, imagination, and emotions. Artists use their intuition and subjective experiences to create unique and expressive works.
They may draw inspiration from their surroundings, personal experiences, or societal issues. It’s a fluid process that allows for individual interpretation and expression.
In contrast, science is a systematic and objective approach to understanding the natural world. Scientists rely on observation, experimentation, and analysis to uncover facts and principles. They follow a structured methodology, adhere to rigorous protocols, and base their findings on evidence.
The scientific thought process aims to eliminate bias and subjectivity, focusing on logical reasoning and reproducibility.
Artistic Thought Process
Artists often start with a concept or idea and then explore different ways to bring it to life. They may experiment with various materials, techniques, and styles to achieve their desired outcome. The artistic thought process is nonlinear and intuitive, allowing for spontaneity and creative expression.
Artists may draw inspiration from their emotions, personal experiences, or the world around them, using their imagination to transform their ideas into visual, auditory, or tactile forms.
Artistic thought processes are subjective and open to interpretation. Artists encourage viewers to engage with their work and form their own opinions and meanings. The subjective nature of art allows for a wide range of perspectives and individual experiences, making it a deeply personal and emotional form of expression.
Scientific Thought Process
Scientists, on the other hand, follow a more structured and systematic thought process. They begin with a research question or hypothesis and then design experiments or studies to test their ideas. The scientific thought process involves careful observation, data collection, and analysis.
Scientists strive for objectivity and aim to eliminate biases or personal opinions from their research.
Scientific thought processes rely on evidence and reproducibility. Results are published in peer-reviewed journals, allowing other scientists to verify and build upon previous findings. Scientific knowledge is cumulative, with new discoveries and theories constantly shaping our understanding of the world.
It’s worth noting that while art and science have different thought processes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often intersect and influence each other. Artists may draw inspiration from scientific discoveries, and scientists may use art as a means of communicating their research findings to the general public.
For more information on the thought processes in art and science, you can visit Smithsonian Magazine and Nature .
Values and Culture
When it comes to the values and culture surrounding art and science, there are distinct differences that shape the way these disciplines are perceived and approached.
Art is often seen as a form of self-expression and creativity. It allows individuals to explore their emotions, thoughts, and ideas through various mediums such as painting, sculpture, and music. The value placed on art lies in its ability to evoke emotions, challenge societal norms, and spark conversations.
Artists often prioritize individuality and freedom of expression, valuing the uniqueness and subjective interpretation of their work.
Artistic culture tends to embrace diversity and encourages individuals to think outside the box. It celebrates innovation and encourages artists to push boundaries and experiment with new techniques and styles.
Artistic communities are often known for their open-mindedness, welcoming different perspectives and fostering collaboration.
Science, on the other hand, is driven by the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. It aims to explain the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. The value placed on science lies in its ability to provide evidence-based explanations and solutions to various problems.
Scientists prioritize objectivity, accuracy, and reproducibility, valuing the rigorous process of scientific inquiry.
Scientific culture emphasizes critical thinking and the importance of evidence. It values skepticism and encourages scientists to question existing theories and hypotheses. Scientific communities are known for their dedication to accuracy and precision, often relying on peer review and collaboration to ensure the validity of their findings.
Comparison:
While art and science have different values and cultures, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often intersect and complement each other. Many artists draw inspiration from scientific discoveries and use scientific methods to inform their creative processes.
Similarly, scientists appreciate the beauty and aesthetic aspects of nature, often finding inspiration in art.
Both art and science contribute to our understanding of the world and have the power to inspire and provoke thought. They play a crucial role in shaping our society and culture, offering different perspectives and ways of interpreting the world around us.
Ultimately, the values and culture surrounding art and science reflect the diversity of human expression and curiosity. Embracing both disciplines can lead to a richer and more holistic understanding of the world we live in.
Language and Communication
Language and communication play a vital role in both art and science. However, the way they are utilized and the purposes they serve differ in these two disciplines.
Artistic Expression
In the realm of art, language is often used as a tool for self-expression and storytelling. Artists use words, whether in the form of poetry, lyrics, or written narratives, to convey emotions, ideas, and messages in a unique and creative way.
Language in art can be seen as a companion to visual elements, enhancing and providing deeper meaning to the artwork.
For example, renowned artist Pablo Picasso once said, “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” Through his use of language, Picasso was able to convey his philosophy and perspective on art, adding another layer of depth to his already powerful paintings.
Scientific Communication
In contrast, language in science serves a more technical and precise purpose. Scientists use language to communicate their research findings, experiments, and theories to their peers and the broader scientific community.
The language used in scientific journals and papers is often highly specialized, with specific terms and concepts that are understood by fellow scientists in the same field.
Scientific communication aims to be objective, clear, and concise, focusing on facts, evidence, and logical reasoning. It is essential for scientists to use language effectively to ensure their research is accurately understood and can be replicated or built upon by others in the scientific community.
The Intersection of Art and Science
Despite their differences, art and science often intersect when it comes to language and communication. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the field of science communication, which seeks to bridge the gap between scientists and the general public.
Artistic methods, such as visualizations, animations, and storytelling, are being used to make complex scientific concepts more accessible and engaging to a wider audience. This approach helps break down barriers and fosters a better understanding and appreciation of scientific advancements.
For instance, websites like National Geographic and NASA utilize stunning visuals and captivating language to communicate scientific discoveries and inspire awe and curiosity in people of all ages.
While language and communication serve different purposes in art and science, they both play integral roles in expressing ideas, sharing knowledge, and connecting with others. Whether it is through the emotive power of words in art or the precision of scientific terminology, language continues to be a powerful tool in human expression and understanding.
In summary, art and science offer complementary ways to understand ourselves and the world around us. Though differing in approach, they often inspire and build on each other. While science seeks factual explanations of natural phenomena, art provides an outlet for creative expression of emotions and the human experience.
By comparing key aspects like methodology, thought processes, values and communication styles, we gain appreciation for what sets these two fields apart as well as what brings them together. Neither is superior – both art and science give meaning to life in their own indispensable way.
So next time you witness the elegance of a scientific theory or find yourself moved by the passion of a striking artwork, remember – these two domains are more alike than we think.
Similar Posts
The Hardest Science Classes In High School
Science courses in high school run the gamut from basic biology to advanced physics, with each class presenting its own academic challenges. In this comprehensive guide, we evaluate the most difficult science classes high schoolers undertake, explore what makes these courses so demanding, and provide tips to help students succeed. If you’re short on time,…
Aperture Science Vs. Black Mesa: Which Research Company Is Superior?
The rivalry between Aperture Science and Black Mesa is legendary in the video game world. Both research companies have developed groundbreaking technologies, but their philosophies and goals could not be more different. For gamers who have played through the Portal and Half-Life series, the burning question remains: which company is truly superior? If you’re short…
The Revolutionary Contributions Of Archimedes To Science And Mathematics
Archimedes is widely regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians and scientists in human history. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer to your question: Archimedes made groundbreaking contributions to geometry, number theory, physics, engineering, and astronomy. Some of his most famous accomplishments include deriving formulas to calculate the area and volume of…
Is Human Geography A Social Science? Examining The Field
Human geography studies the relationship between humans and their environment. If you’re interested in majoring in this field, you likely want to know – is human geography a social science? While it contains some spatial and scientific elements, human geography is fundamentally grounded in the social sciences. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick…
Can Science Answer All Questions? Examining The Capabilities And Limits Of Science
Science has made astonishing progress in answering questions about the natural world, from the smallest subatomic particles to the vast scale of the universe. But are there limits to what science can explain? Can science ultimately provide answers to all the questions we have? In this comprehensive guide, we’ll examine what types of questions science…
Hills Science Diet Vs Royal Canin: Which Pet Food Is Better?
If you’re a pet owner looking for the best food for your furry friend, you may be trying to decide between Hills Science Diet and Royal Canin. Both are veterinarian-recommended pet food brands that claim to provide optimal nutrition. But with so many options on the market, how do you determine which brand is right…
A Journal of Socially-Engaged Art Criticism
Anthropology Between Art and Science: An Essay on the Meaning of Research
Research has become the measure of our age, the means by which we take stock of the world and of our place in it. Moreover we tend to assume, by default, that research is a practice of science. Thus, the researcher is supposed to be a scientist, unless proven otherwise. And by scientific research, we usually have in mind a rather specialized mode of inquiry, dedicated to testing hypotheses through the collection and analysis of data under controlled conditions, and to the advance of theory through conjecture and refutation. Even where practice does not quite live up to these ideals, any scholar who purports to be engaged in a project of research is still expected to be able to explain what it is intended to show, how the work will be carried out, and the anticipated contribution of its results to knowledge.
Anthropologists have always felt uneasy about these expectations, knowing full well that the destination of their research can never be known in advance, that the conditions under which it is carried out are largely beyond their control, and that it never really reaches any conclusion. They worry obsessively about what counts as “anthropological knowledge,” and what it means to produce it. By the standards of science, anthropological research looks weak indeed. Yet anthropologists are still inclined to dress their inquiries in a scientific garb, masking their conversations with those among whom they study as the elicitation of a native point of view, presenting their experiences of life in the field as data for analysis, and treating the lessons learned as if they were the results of an investigation. As for artists, who find increasingly that they have to present what they are doing as research in order to gain the institutional and financial support on which they depend, to present and justify their work as research takes an even greater stretch of credibility. Must they pretend to behave like scientists? If so, what are they trying to find out, and what kinds of knowledge do they think their art can contribute that science cannot? That artists often find such questions difficult if not impossible to answer only aggravates the suspicions of a skeptical public.
My aim in what follows is to reset the default. I want to show that art, and not science, is exemplary in the practice of research, and that anthropology could do well by explicitly following art’s example. Instead of expecting artists and anthropologists to be doing science, we should put the boot on the other foot. If scientists truly believe that what they are doing is research, then it is for them to prove it. This means holding up a spotlight to their own practices, and asking difficult questions about the real meaning of research and what it takes for science to live up to its demands. Perhaps, if scientists are to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as engaged in research, they should start behaving a bit more like artists, or at least like anthropologists. Some scientists, of course, already do, but they remain a dissenting minority, swimming against the currents of the mainstream. Following their example, however, would be a first step towards a convergence between science and art that the world, in its present juncture, badly needs. And anthropology could play a decisive role in bringing it about.
Let me suggest an analogy that, I think, takes us to the heart of the problem. “Explore” is a word that both scientists and artists often use. So do anthropologists, though perhaps a little less eagerly. But what of those who would identify themselves, explicitly, as explorers? A few years ago I attended a symposium on perception and exploration, held in a small town in the Scottish Highlands.[1] It was attended by local people, hillwalkers, a number of artists, two or three anthropologists, and one world-famous mountaineer, invited for the occasion. The hillwalkers and the artists spoke with enthusiasm about their exploration of the highlands, following familiar tracks and trails. Immersed as they were in the landscape, they found in it a source of perpetual astonishment: the ever-changing skies, the play of light, shadow and color, the comings and goings of animals, the sprouting and flowering of plants, intriguing stones and rock formations, even the occasional archaeological find attesting to the long history of human habitation of the region. There was always something to catch one’s attention, and to pursue further.
But when it was the mountaineer’s turn to speak, it was with a tone of unmistakable regret. “There are no explorers any more,” he exclaimed, “only cavers!” Now that every mountain peak had been conquered, many by the man himself, short of starting afresh on another planet, the only future for exploration, he thought, lay underground, in a kind of upside-down mountaineering that would carry the torch of humanity to ever greater depths rather than to the most ascendant heights. How could it be, I wondered as I listened to his speech, that while the hillwalkers and artists could keep on exploring, without end, the mountaineer was convinced that it was all over?
Evidently, they were relating to their environment in very different ways. To the mountaineer, the world presents itself as a terra incognito , already laid out in perpetuity and awaiting the footprint of man. With that final step on the summit, the previously unknown peak is converted into one that is known: it is “discovered” and placed on the map. That many of these mountains had been walked for generations previously by indigenous people, with a view not to conquest but to supplication – such as to request divine help for clement weather, abundant crops, and good health – did not appear to trouble our mountaineer. To him, native inhabitants counted no more than the animals that grazed the slopes. Of course, the same peak could be climbed again and again, but in the mountaineer’s book, every climb is a repeat performance that adds nothing to the original discovery. At best, it offers a kind of confirmation.
This, however, is to assume that the mountain remains forever as it was, on the side of a constant nature as against the campaigns of human history periodically launched in its colonization and conquest. For artists and hillwalkers, however, the landscape of exploration is anything but constant. On the contrary, it is changing all the time. It may certainly be familiar from having been walked many times before, yet every walk is different – a particular going along together of human lives with the lives of plants and animals, with the formation of rocks and stones, with the weather and with the hills themselves. For walkers immersed in this ever-changing landscape, the idea that a hill climbed once is climbed forever is simply absurd.
Now when artists speak of research, they are for the most part implicitly comparing their practice to the explorations of hillwalkers. Scientists, by contrast, would equally implicitly compare themselves with mountaineers. As for anthropologists, they will likely say one thing in the field, and another when reporting on their findings to colleagues back home. So the question is: to which of these versions of exploration does the concept of research apply? It should be obvious by now that I am siding with the artists and hillwalkers. The choice is not arbitrary, however. We have to take sides, I believe, if we are to reach an accommodation with the world that is in any sense sustainable.
The mountaineer’s regret stemmed from a belated acknowledgment of the unsustainability of his own practice. There were no more peaks to climb. All is known; he had nowhere further to go. But if research is not simply to be an instrument of colonization, of closing down the world for future generations (or of sending them underground or to other planets), then we have no alternative but to join with its human and non-human inhabitants in the collective task of keeping life going. And that means taking the meaning of research quite literally.
In its literal sense, research is a second search, an act of searching again. To search again is not to repeat, exactly, what you did before, under identical conditions. For every search not only doubles up on your previous intervention, but also makes an original intervention that invites a double in its turn. Between one search and the next there is always a differential. It’s like walking the same path, or climbing the same hill, over and over. No walk, no climb, can ever be identical to what went before. Every step is a new beginning. Or to adopt a handy distinction from the philosopher Gilles Deleuze, and his ecologically minded collaborator, Félix Guattari, research is a process not of iteration but of itineration .[2] It carries on, as life does, not closing in on solutions but ever opening to new horizons. You will likely never find what you seek, for it has a way of receding as fast as you approach, or – chameleon-like – of altering its character. The mountain, as we have seen, is never the same twice. But you press on undeterred, driven by a desire that seems as insatiable, and indeed as imperative, as the will to live. You call it curiosity .
Research, then, is not a technical operation, a particular thing you do in life, for so many hours each day. It is rather a way of living curiously – that is, with care and attention. As such, it pervades everything you do. But what are you looking for, that so evades your grasp? Are you, like a detective, hunting down the facts, aiming to get at the bottom of what happened? Or, like a customs officer, re-searching the premises for hidden contraband? Or perhaps you are a hillwalker, searching for a place you remember. Or an anthropologist, trying to make sense of an event you have witnessed in the field. You could be any of these. But as any detective, customs officer, walker or anthropologist will tell you, nailing the facts, locating the goods, identifying the right spot or crafting an ethnographic account will never finally resolve the case. The criminal is convicted in court on the grounds of evidence, but guilt lives on in the unrelenting trials of conscience. Smuggled drugs are discovered, yet they have a material afterlife in the minds and bodies of those who may have produced or ingested them. The walk may be finished, but the place lives on in memory. The ethnographic case may be closed, but social life continues. And so on.
In short, something always escapes, always overflows our most determined attempts to pin things down. That slippery, fugitive and ineffable quality is truth . And research never ends because it is, fundamentally, a search for truth. For many today, truth is a scary word, better kept inside quotation marks, if used at all. It conjures up terrifying images of the violent oppression wreaked, in the name of truth, by those who have appointed themselves as its worldly representatives or ambassadors. We should not, however, blame truth for the wrongs committed in its name. The fault lies in its totalization, in its conversion into a monolith that stands eternal like a monument, timeless and fully formed. This rests on a delusion, on the part of its self-appointed guardians, that they are themselves above truth, that they are the masters of it, and truth theirs to command. Human history is studded with delusional projects of this kind, each catastrophic for those subjected to it, and each ultimately smothered by the sands of time.
Research, to the contrary, rests on the acknowledgment that we can never conquer truth, any more than we can conquer life. Such conquest is for immortals. But for us, mortal beings, truth is always greater than we are, always beyond what – at any moment – can be physically determined or grasped within the categories of thought. Truth is inexhaustible. Wherever or whenever we may be, we can still go further. Thus, research affords no final release into the light. Remaining ever in the shadows, we stumble along with no end in sight, doggedly following whatever clues afford a passage.[3] This is hardly conducive to optimism, to the belief – common among theorists of progress – that the best of all worlds is only just around the corner, pending one or two final breakthroughs. But while it may not be optimistic, research is always hopeful. For in converting every closure into an opening, every apparent solution into a new problem, it is the guarantor that life can carry on. And for this very reason, research is a primary responsibility of the living.
Now if research, as I maintain, is the pursuit of truth, and if truth ever exceeds the given, then there must always be more to research than the collection and analysis of data. It must go beyond the facts. The fact stops us in our tracks, and blocks our way. “This is how it is,” it says to us, “proceed no further!” But even if the facts of a case may be incontrovertibly established, its truth lives on. This is not to suggest that truth lies behind the facts, calling for a superior intelligence armed with theoretical power-tools capable of breaking through the surface appearances or ideological mirrors that deceive the rest of us into thinking that we can already tell reality from illusion. We don’t need to call on theorists with heavy duty equipment to clear the obstacles. Nor is it to suggest that it lies within the facts, as some kind of unfathomable essence that will forever hide from us, sunk into itself, as self-proclaimed advocates of so-called “object-oriented ontology” like to tell us. It is rather to insist that what appear to us, in the first instance, as blockages turn out, when we search again – that is, in our re -search – to be openings that let us in.
It is as though the fact rotated by ninety degrees, like a door on opening, so that it no longer confronts us face-on but aligns itself longitudinally with our own movements. And where the fact leads, we follow. “Come with us,” it says. What had once put an end to our search then reappears, in re -search, as a new beginning, a way into a world that is not already formed, but itself undergoing formation. It is not that we have broken through the surface of the world to discover its hidden secrets. Rather, as the doors of perception open, and as we join with things in the relations and processes of their formation, the surface itself vanishes. The truth of this world, then, is not to be found “out there,” established by reference to the objective facts, but is disclosed from within. It is indeed the very matrix of our existence as worldly beings. We can have no knowledge of this truth save by being in it.
This, for example, is how the veteran Scottish hillwalker, Nan Shepherd, came to know the truth of her beloved Cairngorms, as celebrated in her now classic book The Living Mountain . She did not walk the hills in order to summit them, or to look down from peak after peak onto domains now conquered by a panoptic view. From a distance the mountain might look like a peak, with its summit pointing determinedly heavenwards, pronouncing as fact its height above sea level. That is what goes down on the map. But it no longer looks like a peak once one is embarked on the slopes, nor does the summit look like a summit when we eventually reach it. It is more a plateau that happens to be of higher elevation than its immediate environs. Shepherd writes of lying outstretched on the plateau, “under me the central core of fire from which was thrust this grumbling, grinding mass of plutonic rock, over me blue air, and between the fire of the rock and the fire of the sun, scree, soil and water, moss, grass, flower and tree, insect, bird and beast, rain and snow – the total mountain. Slowly I have found my way in.”[4]
Shepherd is not on top of the mountain but enveloped by it – by its overwhelming and indeed unfathomable truth. She is knowing the truth of the mountain from her being-inside it. This kind of knowing-in-being, I contend, is of the essence of research. Now for those who hold that true knowledge of the world can be had only by taking ourselves out of it, and by looking at it from a distance, this contention will of course be completely unacceptable. That’s how our mountaineer saw the world he had set out to conquer. The pictures he showed us in his talk – and these were many – were all of the mountains he had climbed, seen from afar, or of men dressed up in all their gear, ready for the campaign. For him as for the many who think like him, mountains are objects, and objectivity is the very hallmark of truth.
It is indeed understandable that in a world where facts often appear divorced from any kind of observation, where they can be invented on a whim, propagated through mass media, and manipulated to suit the interests of the powerful regardless of their veracity, we should be anxious about the fate of truth. To many, it seems that in this era of post-truth, we are cast adrift without an anchor. We are right to insist that there can be no proper facts without observation. But we are wrong, I believe, to suppose that observation stops at objectivity. For to observe, it is not enough merely to look at things. We have to join with them, and to follow. And it is precisely as observation goes beyond objectivity that truth goes beyond the facts.
Two things follow from this. First, if research is the pursuit of truth, then it can have nothing specifically to do with innovation. This might seem an odd claim to make. In the language of progressive development, embraced as much by science as by corporate industry, research and innovation appear joined at the hip. What possible meaning can be given to research, if it is not about coming up with new facts, or new ideas, that were not previously within the compass of human knowledge? Is research not intended to enlarge the compass? How can we progress, by way of research, if we keep on rediscovering what we already knew? Indeed for contemporary science and industry, locked into a global economy of knowledge in which only innovation sells, truth appears to take second place to novelty. The critical thing is to demonstrate how this idea, or that fact, exceeds or overtakes what was previously thought or known. This only begs the question, however, of how to decide whether an idea or fact is new or not.
Novelty, in an absolute sense, can only be demonstrated by comparing our results with everything that has gone before. Do we, then, every time we come up with a result, have to trawl through all the ideas that have ever been thought, or facts that have ever been noted, to check that it has never previously been proposed or recorded? This is like the mountaineer, checking that no-one before has scaled a particular peak. If it turns out that someone has, then his claim to have “discovered” it would risk being discredited. An extraordinary amount of effort, in science, is devoted to trying to demonstrate the novelty of discovery. But not only is this, for the most part, virtually impossible in practice; it is also ludicrous in principle.[5] This is because the world itself does not stand still while we subject it to repeated examination. Nor do we, being part of that world, remain still while examining it. As we have already seen with hills and mountains, ideas and things have lives – they carry on – and it is no more possible to revisit exactly the same idea, or to rediscover exactly the same thing, than it is, in the famous analogy of Heraclitus, to step twice into the running waters of the same river. In short, nothing is ever new, since nothing ever repeats. Research, knowing-in-being, means joining with the ways of the world, and following them wherever they go. Like the river, like the mountain, like life, they have no final destination.
The second thing is that curiosity, in research, is a practice of care. That curiosity and care go together, in the attention we pay to things, should be obvious from the fact that both words share the same etymological root (from the Latin, curare ). Yet in the practice of science they are more commonly separated. For scientists, it is a condition of objectivity that they should refuse any relationship – any form of involvement whatever – with the things or phenomena that capture their attention. This condition is generally met by means of methodology: a rigid set of procedures expressly designed to immunize researchers from direct contact with the materials of study. Indeed the competition for innovation in the knowledge economy has given rise to something approaching a methodological arms race, driving scientists ever further from their objects. Their ideal of curiosity is “blue-sky research,” in which investigators are free from all commitment and responsibility towards what they study, to follow their own bent. It is for others to worry about how their results might be applied, if at all.[6]
However, if truth lies beyond objectivity, then there comes a point in its pursuit when, in our observations, the things we study begin to tell us how to observe. In allowing ourselves into their presence rather than holding them at arm’s length, in attending to them, we find that they are also guiding our attention. Our eyes and ears, hands and minds, absorb into their ways of working a perceptual acuity attuned to their particular ways of moving, of feeling and of being. Attending to these ways, we also respond to them, as they respond to us. Research, then, becomes a practice of correspondence .[7] It is through corresponding with things that we care for them: it is a labor of love, giving back what we owe to the world for our own existence as beings within it. Research as correspondence, in this sense, is not just what we do but what we undergo. It is a form of experience. For in experience, things are with us in our thoughts, dreams and our imaginings, and we with them.
In anthropology, this way of working is already well-established. It is known as participant observation . But participant observation is by no means limited to anthropologists. It is common even to scientists – especially when they are working in the field rather than the laboratory – although they may be reluctant to admit to it. They, too, in their studies, are immersed in a lifeworld and, just like hillwalkers, are ever attentive and responsive to the rustlings and whisperings of their surroundings. The chemist Friedrich August Kekulé, in a lecture recalling his discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule, offered this advice to every young scientist: “note every footprint, every bent twig, every fallen leaf.” Then, he said, you will see where next to place your feet.[8] For Kekulé, science was a sort of wayfaring, or as he called it, “pathfinding.” Corresponding with things in the processes of their formation, rather than merely being informed by what has already precipitated out, the pathfinder not only collects but accepts what the world has to offer.
It is in this more humble profession, I believe, rather than in arrogating to itself the exclusive authority to represent a given reality, that scientific inquiry can converge with artistic sensibility, and indeed with anthropological participant observation, as a way of knowing-in-being. For in practice, scientists are differentiated – as much as are artists, and indeed people everywhere – by the specificities of their experience and the skills arising from them, not by the territorial demarcation of fields of study. Science, when it becomes art, is both personal and charged with feeling; its wisdom is born of imagination and experience, and its manifold voices belong to each and every one who practices it, not to some transcendent authority for which they serve indifferently as spokespersons. And where scientific pathfinding joins with the art of research, to grow into knowledge of the world is at the same time to grow into the knowledge of one’s own self.[9]
However, for science to align thus with art, and indeed with anthropology, means calling into question a tenet that has underpinned the development of science ever since the days of Francis Bacon and Galileo Galilei. It is that the very job of science is to wrest fact from fantasy, truth from illusion. “Let us learn to dream,” Kekulé went on to tell his audience, “then perhaps we shall find the truth. But let us beware of publishing our dreams till they have been tested by waking understanding.” For Kekulé, and for the majority who think like him, if science needs art it is to fantasize, to give the mind freedom to roam, to come up with novel ideas. But only when tested against the facts can ideas born of the imagination lay any claim to truth.
Now if the purpose of research were no more and no less than to establish such factual truth claims, then indeed, it could admit to neither imagination nor experience in its experimental or investigative operations. But if, as I have argued here, truth lies beyond the facts, then science can legitimately take on the mantle of research only insofar as it is willing to surpass the limits of objectivity and follow the way of art, and of anthropology, into a correspondence that reunites experience and imagination, in its ongoing attention to a world that is also attending to us. It would be for science, too, to join in the pursuit of truth as a way of knowing-in-being, through practices of curiosity and care. Therein, I contend, lies the proper vocation of research.
Acknowledgments
This is the revised text of a lecture originally presented at the Galleria Civica di Arte Moderna e Contemporanea (GAM), Turin, on 28 th March 2018. It draws in part on a shorter essay, “L’art, la science et le sense de la recherche” (Art, science and the meaning of research), published in the journal A/R (1: 89-93, 143-4, 2018). I am indebted to the European Research Council for the funding that supported both the preparation of the lecture and the writing of this text, as part of the Advanced Grant project Knowing From the Inside (323677-KFI).
Tim Ingold is Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, and a Fellow of the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Following 25 years at the University of Manchester, Ingold moved in 1999 to Aberdeen, where he established the UK’s newest Department of Anthropology. Ingold has carried out ethnographic fieldwork among Saami and Finnish people in Lapland, and has written on environment, technology and social organization in the circumpolar North, the role of animals in human society, issues in human ecology, and evolutionary theory in anthropology, biology and history. In his more recent work, he has explored the links between environmental perception and skilled practice. Ingold is currently writing and teaching on issues on the interface between anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. He is the author of The Perception of the Environment (2000), Lines (2007), Being Alive (2011), Making (2013) The Life of Lines (2015), Anthropology and/as Education (2017) and Anthropology: Why it Matters (2018).
[1] This was the Hielan’ Ways Symposium, Perceptions of Exploration , 14-15 November 2014, Tomintoul, Moray, organized by Deveron Arts of Huntly, Aberdeenshire.
[2] Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (London: Continuum, 2004), 410.
[3] See Tyson E. Lewis, “Rethinking the learning society: Giorgio Agamben on studying, stupidity, and impotence,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 30, (2011): 585-599.
[4] Nan Shepherd, The Living Mountain: A Celebration of the Cairngorm Mountains of Scotland (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1977), 93.
[5] On this, see Tim Ingold, “The creativity of undergoing,” Pragmatics and Cognition 22, no.1 (2014): 124-139.
[6] Tim Ingold, Anthropology and/as Education (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 73.
[7] Tim Ingold, “On human correspondence,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 23, (2017): 9-27.
[8] The citation is from an English translation of Kekulé’s address by O. Theodore Benfey, “August Kekulé and the birth of the structural theory of organic chemistry in 1858,” Journal of Chemical Education 35, (1958): 21-23.
[9] Tim Ingold, Anthropology and/as Education (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 71.
Other Issues
More reading.
FIELD Issue 27 Editorial
Reciprocity Over Unilateralism: Introduction to Issue 27
Dispatch Art as Socially Engaged Radical Art in South Korea
Listen to the City Contesting Urban Necropolitics Against Disability
Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Sign in to your account
Username or Email Address
Remember Me
24/7 writing help on your phone
To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance. (2016, Mar 19). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay
"The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance." StudyMoose , 19 Mar 2016, https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay
StudyMoose. (2016). The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay [Accessed: 9 Aug. 2024]
"The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance." StudyMoose, Mar 19, 2016. Accessed August 9, 2024. https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay
"The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance," StudyMoose , 19-Mar-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay. [Accessed: 9-Aug-2024]
StudyMoose. (2016). The Interdependence of Science and Arts: A Balanced Alliance . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/science-vs-arts-essay [Accessed: 9-Aug-2024]
The Interdependence of Power, Speed, and Coordination Pages: 6 (1519 words)
Interdependence of Learning and Development Pages: 4 (1063 words)
Globalization and Economic Interdependence: A Growing Relationship Pages: 5 (1455 words)
Concept of interdependence Pages: 3 (619 words)
Team Case Analysis and Comparison: Fiat-Chrysler Alliance (FCA) and Michelin Pages: 4 (1114 words)
Laura Ashley and Federal Express Strategic Alliance Pages: 3 (885 words)
The making of a Global Alliance: Nissan and Renault Pages: 11 (3200 words)
Alliance Supermarket Industry and POS Systems Pages: 6 (1581 words)
Balance of Threat and the Ottoman-German Alliance of 1914 Pages: 6 (1643 words)
Overview Of Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault Pages: 4 (1130 words)
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
Enter the characters you see below
Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies.
Type the characters you see in this image:
Marx and Engels On Literature and Art
Source : Marx Engels On Literature and Art . Progress Publishers. Moscow 1976; Transcribed : by Andy Blunden .
This volume offers the reader a selection of both excerpts and complete works and letters by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, giving their views on art and its place in society. Though it contains far from all that was written by the founders of scientific communism on this subject, it will nevertheless acquaint the reader with Marx’s and Engels’ most important ideas about artistic work.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels had an excellent knowledge of world art and truly loved literature, classical music, and painting. In their youth both Marx and Engels wrote poetry; in fact Engels at one time seriously contemplated becoming a poet.
They were well acquainted not only with classical literature, but also with the works of less prominent and even of little known writers both among their contemporaries and those who lived and worked in more distant times. They admired Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Dickens, Fielding, Goethe, Heine, Cervantes, Balzac, Dante, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, and mentioned many other less famous people who had also made their mark in the history of literature. They also displayed a great love for popular art, for the epics of various nations and other types of folklore: songs, tales, fables and proverbs.
Marx and Engels made extensive use of the treasures of world literature in their own works., Their repeated references to literary and mythological figures, and use of aphorisms, comparisons and direct quotations, masterfully woven into their works, are a distinctive feature of their style. The writings of Marx and Engels are notable not only for profundity of content, but also for their exceptional artistic merits. Wilhelm Liebknecht gave high praise to Marx’s style, citing his The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte as an example. “If ever hatred, scorn and passionate love of liberty were expressed in burning, devastating, lofty words,” wrote Liebknecht, “it is in The Eighteenth Brumaire, which combines the indignant severity of a Tacitus with the deadly satire of a Juvenal and the holy wrath of a Dante. Style here is the stilus that it was of old in the hand of the Romans, a sharp stiletto, used to write and to stab. Style is a dagger which strikes unerringly at the heart” ( Reminiscences of Marx and Engels , Moscow, 1956, p. 57).
Marx and Engels used artistic imagery to express their thoughts more forcefully and vividly in their journalistic and polemical works, and even in their fundamental theoretical works such as Capital and Anti-D�hring. Marx’s pamphlet Herr Vogt, directed against Karl Vogt who was slandering the proletarian party, is one of the most striking examples. The biting sarcasm of this pamphlet is particularly effective due to the author’s skilful use of works by classical writers such as Virgil, Plautus, and Persius, by the medieval German poets Gottfried von Strassburg and Wolfram von Eschenbach, and also by such classics of world literature as Balzac, Dickens, Schiller and Heine.
Their superb knowledge of world art helped Marx and Engels to elaborate genuinely scientific aesthetic principles. The founders of scientific communism were thus not only able to answer the complex aesthetic questions of the previous age, but also to elaborate a fundamentally new system of aesthetic science. They did so only as a result of the great revolutionary upheaval they had brought about in philosophy by creating dialectical and historical materialism and laying down the foundations for the materialist conception of history. Though Marx and Engels have left no major writings on art, their views in this field, when collected together, form a harmonious whole which is a logical extension of their scientific and revolutionary Weltanschauung. They explained the nature of art and its paths of development, its tasks in society and social aims. Marxist aesthetics, like the whole teaching of Marx and Engels, are subordinated to the struggle for the communist reorganisation of society.
When developing their theory of aesthetics, Marx and Engels naturally based themselves on the achievements of their predecessors. But the main aesthetic problems — and above all the problem of the relationship between art and reality — were solved by them in a fundamentally new way, on the basis of materialist dialectics. Idealist aesthetics considered art as a reproduction of the ideal, standing over and* above actual reality. The origin of any art form, its development, flowering, and decay, all remained incomprehensible to the art theoreticians and historians of the pre-Marxian period, inasmuch as they studied these in isolation from man’s social existence.
Marx and Engels considered it absolutely impossible to understand art and literature proceeding only from their internal laws of development. In their opinion, the essence, origin, development, and social role of art could only be understood through analysis of the social system as a whole, within which the economic factor — the development, of productive forces in complex interaction with production relations — plays the decisive role. Thus art, as defined by Marx and Engels, is one of the forms of social consciousness and it therefore follows that the reasons for its changes should be sought in the social existence of men.
Marx and Engels revealed the social nature of art and its development in the course of history and showed that in a society with class antagonisms it was influenced by class ‘contradictions and by the politics and ideologies of particular classes.
Marx and Engels gave a materialist explanation of the origin of the aesthetic sense itself. They noted that man’s artistic abilities, his capacity for perceiving the world aesthetically, for comprehending its beauty and for creating works of art appeared as a result of the long development of human society and were the product of man’s labour. As early as in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 , Marx pointed to the role of labour in the development of man’s capacity to perceive and reproduce the beautiful and to form objects also “in accordance with the laws of beauty” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1975, p. 277).
This idea was later developed by Engels in his work Dialectics of Nature, in which he noted that efforts of toil “have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini” (see pp. 128-29 of this book). Thus both Marx and Engels emphasise that man’s aesthetic sense is not an inborn, but a socially-acquired quality.
The founders of Marxism extended their dialectical view of the nature of human thought to analysis of artistic creativity. In examining the development of art together with that of the material world and the history of society, they noted that the content and forms of art were not established firmly once and for all, but that they inevitably developed and changed according to definite laws along with the development of the material world and of human society. Each historical period has inherent aesthetic ideals and produces works of art corresponding to its particular character and unrepeatable under other conditions. Comparing, for example, the works of Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci and Titian, Marx and Engels emphasised that “Raphael’s works of art depended on the flourishing of Rome at that time, which occurred under Florentine influence, while the works of Leonardo depended on the state of things in Florence, and the works of Titian, at a later period, depended on the totally different development of Venice” (p. 177).
The fact that the level of development of society and its social structure determine the content of artistic works and the prevalence of any particular literary or artistic genre was seen by Marx as the main reason that art in different periods never repeats itself and, in particular, that there was no possibility to create the mythology or epic poetry similar to those of the ancient Greeks under the conditions of the nineteenth century. “Is the conception of nature and of social relations which underlies Greek imagination and therefore Greek (art),” wrote Marx, “possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs?” (p. 83).
It goes without saying that Marxism has a far from open-and-shut understanding of the relations between the forms of social consciousness (and of art in particular) and their economic basis. For Marx and Engels, any social formation constituted a complex and dynamic system of interacting elements, each influencing the other — a system in which the economic factor is the determining one only in the final analysis. They were in no way inclined to qualify art as a passive product of the economic system. On the contrary, they emphasised that the various forms of social consciousness — including, of course, artistic creation — actively influence the social reality from which they emerge.
As if to forestall sociological vulgarisations of the problems of artistic creation, Marx and Engels drew attention to the fact that social life and the ideology of particular classes are reflected in art in a far from mechanistic manner. Artistic creativity is subordinate to the general laws of social development but, being a special form of consciousness, has its own distinctive features and specific patterns.
One of art’s distinctive features is its relative independence as it develops. The fact that works of art are connected historically with particular social structures does not mean that they lose their significance when these social structures disappear. On this point Marx cites the art and epic poetry of the ancient Greeks which “still give us aesthetic pleasure and are in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable ideal” (p. 84). He also provides a profound explanation for this phenomenon: Greek art reflected the naive and at the same time healthy, normal perception of reality characteristic of mankind in those early stages of its development, the period of its childhood; it reflected the striving for “natural veracity,” with its unique attractiveness and special charm for all (p. 84).
This example expresses an important Marxist aesthetic principle: in looking at works of art as basically reflections of particular social conditions and relationships, it is imperative also to see the features that make the lasting value of these works.
Marx and Engels considered as another particular feature of art the fact that its periods of upsurge do not automatically coincide with social progress in other fields, including that of material production. Thus Marx wrote in the Introduction to his Economic Manuscripts of 1857-1858: “ As regards art, it is well known that some of its peaks by no means correspond to the general development of society; nor do they therefore to the material substructure” (p. 82 of this book). Marx and Engels saw the reason for this imbalance between the development of art and of society as a whole in the fact that the spiritual culture of any period is determined not only by the level of development of material production — the “material basis” of society — but also by the character of the social relations peculiar to that period. In other words, such factors as the specific character of social relations, the degree of development of class antagonisms and the existence in any period of specific conditions for the development of man’s individuality, all have an important bearing on art, determining its nature and development.
As far as capitalist society is concerned, this imbalance, according to Marx and Engels, must be considered as an expression of capitalism’s fundamental contradiction, the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation. From his analysis of the contradictions of capitalism, Marx draws a conclusion which is of extraordinary importance for aesthetics, namely that “capitalist production is hostile to certain branches of spiritual production, for example, art and poetry” (p. 141). This proposition in no way denies the development of literature and art under capitalism, but means that the very nature of the capitalist system of exploitation is in profound contradiction with the humanist ideals which inspire genuine artists. The more conscious artists are of the contradiction, between their ideals and the capitalist reality, the louder and clearer do their works (often despite the class origin of the very author) protest against the inhumanity of capitalist relations. Bourgeois society’s hostility towards art begets, even in bourgeois literature, criticism of capitalism in one form or another, with capitalist reality being depicted as one filled with tragic collisions. This, in Marx’s and Engels’ opinion, is a dialectical feature of the development of art under capitalism. It is for this very reason that bourgeois society has produced Shakespeare, Goethe, Balzac and other writers of genius who were capable of rising above their epoch and class environment and condemning with immense artistic power the vices of the capitalist system of exploitation.
In their works, Marx and, Engels set forth a number of profound ideas on the class nature of art in a society of antagonisms. They showed that even great writers, who were able, often despite their own class positions, to give a true and vivid picture of real life, were, in a class society, pressured by the ideas and interests of the ruling classes and frequently made serious concessions to these in their works. Taking Goethe, Schiller, Balzac, and other writers as examples, Marx and Engels found that the contradictions peculiar to them were not the result of purely individual features of their psychological make-up, but an ideological reflection of real contradictions in the life of society.
The founders of Marxism emphasised that art was an important weapon in the ideological struggle between classes. It could reinforce just as it could undermine the power of the exploiters, could serve to defend class oppression or, on the contrary, contribute to the education and development of the consciousness of the toiling masses, bringing them closer to victory over their oppressors. Marx and Engels therefore called for a clear distinction to be made between progressive and reactionary phenomena in feudal and bourgeois culture and put forward the principle of the Party approach to art that it be evaluated from the position of the revolutionary class.
While showing that a link existed between art and the class struggle, Marx and Engels always fought against attempts to schematise this problem. They pointed out that classes were not static and unchangeable but that class interrelationships changed in the course of history, the role of the classes in the life of society undergoing complex metamorphoses. Thus, in the period of struggle against feudalism, the bourgeoisie was able to create considerable spiritual values, but having come to power as a result of the anti-feudal revolutions, it gradually began to reject the very weapon it had itself forged in the struggle against feudalism. The bourgeoisie accomplishes this break with its revolutionary past when a new force appears on the historical arena — the proletariat. Under these conditions, attempts by individual members of the bourgeois intelligentsia, in particular cultural and artistic figures, to gain a deeper understanding of reality, to go beyond the framework of bourgeois relations and express their protest against these in some art form, inevitably lead them to conflicts with official bourgeois society and to their departure from bourgeois positions.
Marx and Engels apply their dialectical and materialist theory of knowledge to analysis of art and literature. In their opinion, artistic creation is one of the ways of reflecting reality and, at the same time, of perceiving and apprehending it; it is also one of the strongest levers of influencing the spiritual development of humanity. This approach to art forms the basis of the materialist understanding of its social importance and prominent role in the progress of society.
Naturally enough, when examining literature and art, Marx and Engels concentrated their attention on the problem of realism — the most accurate depiction of reality in an artistic work.
They considered realism, as a trend in literature and a method of artistic creation, to be the supreme achievement of world art. Engels formulated what is generally recognised as the classical definition of realism. “Realism, to my mind,” he wrote, “implies, besides truth of detail, the truthful reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances” (p. 90). Realistic representation, Marx and Engels emphasised, is by no means a mere copy of reality, but a way of penetrating into the very essence of a phenomenon, a method of artistic generalisation that makes it possible to disclose the typical traits of a particular age. This is what they valued in the work of the great realist writers such as Shakespeare, Cervantes, Goethe, Balzac, Pushkin and others. Marx described the English realists of the 19th century — Dickens, Thackeray, the Bront�s, and Gaskell — as a brilliant pleiad of novelists “whose graphic and eloquent pages have issued to the world more political and social truths than have been uttered by all the professional politicians, publicists and moralists put together” (p. 339). Engels developed a similar line of thought when analysing the works of the great French realist writer Balzac. Writing about the Com�die humaine, he noted that Balzac gave the reader “a most wonderfully realistic history of French society ... from which, even in economic details (for instance the re-arrangement of real and personal property after the Revolution) I have learned more than from all the professed historians, economists and statisticians of the period together” (p. 91).
Marx and Engels set out some very important ideas about realism in their letters to Lassalle in the spring of 1859, in which they sharply criticise his historical drama Franz von Sickingen dealing with the knights’ rebellion of 1522-23, on the eve of the Peasant War in Germany. These two letters are of great. significance because they contain a statement of the fundamental principles of Marxist aesthetics (pp. 98-107).
Marx’s and Engels’ demands on the artist include truthfulness of depiction, a concrete historical approach to the events described and personages with live and individual traits reflecting typical aspects of the character and psychology of the class milieu to which they belong. The author of genuinely realistic works communicates his ideas to the reader not by didactic philosophising, but by vivid images which affect the reader’s consciousness and feelings by their artistic expressiveness. Marx and Engels considered that Lassalle had carried even further some of the weaknesses in the artistic method of the great German poet and playwright Schiller — in particular his penchant for abstract rhetoric, which resulted in his heroes becoming abstract and one-dimensional declaimers of certain ideas. In this regard they preferred Shakespeare’s realism to Schiller’s method. Both pointed out to Lassalle that, in imitating Schiller, he was forgetting the importance for the realist writer to* combine depth of content and lofty ideals with efforts to achieve a Shakespearian ability to depict genuine passions and the multiple facets of the human character.
In their letters to Lassalle, Marx and Engels also touched upon the question of the links between literature and life, between literature and the’ present day. Marx by no means condemned Lassalle for his intention to draw an analogy between the events of the 16th century described in the play and the situation in the mid-19th century, and to bring out the truly tragic collision which “spelled the doom ... of the revolutionary party of 1848-1849” (p. 98). He saw the author’s mistake in his incorrect, idealistic interpretation of this collision, in the reduction of the reasons for it to the allegedly age-old abstract “tragedy of revolution,” which lacks any concrete historical or class content. Marx criticised Lassalle not for the political tendency of his drama, but for the fact that it was essentially mistaken from the point of view of the materialist conception of history and of the world outlook of the proletarian revolutionaries. Marx and Engels were highly critical of attempts to place literature above politics and of the theory of “art for art’s sake.” They insisted that the works of realist writers should reflect a progressive world outlook, be permeated with progressive ideas and deal with truly topical problems. It was in this sense that they welcomed tendentiousness in literature, interpreted as ideological and political partisanship. “I am by no means opposed to tendentious poetry as such,” wrote Engels to the German writer Minna Kautsky on November 26, 1885. ‘Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, and Aristophanes, the father of comedy, were highly partisan poets, Dante and Cervantes were so no less, and the best thing that can be said about Schiller’s Kabale und Liebe is that it represents the first German political problem drama. The modern Russians and Norwegians, who produce excellent novels, all write with a purpose” (p. 88). Marx and Engels were at the same time resolute opponents of stupid tendentiousness — bare-faced moralising, didacticism instead of artistic method, and abstract impersonations instead of live characters. They criticised the poets in the “Young Germany” literary movement for the artistic inferiority of their characters and attempts to make up for their lack of literary mastery with political arguments. Engels provides an apt definition of genuine tendentiousness in his letter to Minna Kautsky: “I think however that the purpose must become manifest from the situation and the action themselves without being expressly pointed out and that the author does not have to serve the reader on a platter the future historical resolution of the social conflicts which he describes” (p. 88).
Both Marx and Engels were deeply convinced that progressive literature had to reflect truthfully the deep-lying, vital processes of the day, to promulgate progressive ideas, and to defend the interests of the progressive forces in society. The modern term the Party spirit in literature expresses what they understood by this. They felt that the very quality that was lacking in Lassalle’s play — the organic unity of idea and artistry — was the sine qua non of genuinely realistic art.
In setting out the principles of materialist aesthetics and the fundamental and most general laws governing the development of art, the founders of scientific communism laid the basis of Marxist literary and art criticism and proposed the primary tenets of the materialist interpretation of the history of art and literature. In their works and correspondence, they threw new light on the most important questions of the historical and literary process and revealed such aspects in the works of both classical and contemporary writers which were beyond the comprehension of bourgeois literary historians. In the present collection, the reader will find Marx’s and Engels’ views of the artistic works of the most important ages in mankind’s history — their evaluation of art in ancient and medieval times, of Renaissance culture and literature, of literature in the period of the Enlightenment, and, finally, of the work of the romantic and realist writers of the 19th century. In addition, the reader will discover the attitude of the founders of Marxist aesthetics towards the main literary and artistic trends in general and their opinions on individual writers and other artists.
Marx’s and Engels’ view of ancient art has already been discussed briefly above. Let us now turn to their evaluation of the art of other ages.
Their genuinely scientific explanation of the specific features of the social system and culture of medieval times is of exceptional interest. Marx and Engels stripped away the romantic idealisation of the Middle Ages and, at the same time, demonstrated the inconsistency of the abstract view held by the Enlighteners that this was merely an age of social and cultural regression. They pointed out that the transition from slave-owning to feudal society was historically inevitable and showed that the establishment of the feudal mode of production was a step forward in the development of human society, compared to the reign of slavery which had preceded it. This enabled Marx and Engels to form a new approach to medieval culture and art and point out those features in them which reflected the progressive course of historical development. Engels wrote that “. . as a result of the intermingling of nations in the early Middle Ages new nationalities gradually developed” (Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 21, S. 395), the appearance of which was a prerequisite for further social and cultural development of mankind. Analysing various epic poems of the early Middle Ages such as the Elder Edda and other Icelandic and Irish sagas, Beowulf, the Lay of Hildebrand and the Chanson de Roland, Marx and Engels showed that they reflected the gradual transition from the earliest stages of the tribal system to new levels of social consciousness connected with the early period of the formation of European nationalities. The epic and national-heroic poetry of the Middle Ages is notable, as Engels pointed out, for characteristics which show their new cultural-historical and aesthetic quality, as compared with the classical epic poetry of the ancient world. The same also applies to the later lyric poetry of the feudal Middle Ages — the medieval romance lyrics, best exemplified by the works of the Provencal troubadours. In his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State Engels wrote that “no such thing as individual sex love existed before the Middle Ages” (p. 215). For this reason, he said, the appearance and poetic glorification of individual love in the Middle Ages was a step forward compared to antiquity. Moreover, the medieval love poems influenced the following generations and prepared the ground for the flowering of poetry in the modern age.
Marx and Engels formulated and substantiated a new view of the Renaissance, one which differed radically from the views of earlier bourgeois cultural historians and also in many ways from those of contemporary and later bourgeois historiography. This new understanding of the basic historical meaning of the Renaissance in Western Europe was presented by Engels in its most developed form in 1875-76 in one of his versions for the Introduction to the Dialectics of Nature (pp. 251-53). Engels emphasised that, contrary to the traditional view of bourgeois science, the Renaissance must not be seen as merely an upheaval in the ideological and spiritual life of the times. The origins of this new age, he states, should be sought above all in the economic and political. changes that brought about the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. Engels penetrated to the very essence of the phenomena which made possible the immense leap forward in the culture, literature and art of that period, some achievements of which remained unequal led even in the more mature bourgeois society. The art of the Renaissance, as Engels noted, developed not in a period of already settled bourgeois society but “in the midst of the general revolution” (Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1974, p. 21). Social relations were at that time in a state of constant flux and change and had not yet become, as they did in mature bourgeois society, a force which to a certain extent limited the development of personal initiative, talent and capabilities but, on the contrary, actively contributed to their development. Because of its revolutionary character this age, the one of “the greatest progressive revolution that mankind had so far experienced,” stated Engels, “called for giants and produced giants ... in power of thought, passion and character, in universality and learning.” This is why “the men who founded the modern rule of the bourgeoisie had anything but bourgeois limitations” (pp. 252-53).
Engels also noted that “the heroes of that time were not yet in thrall to the division of labour, the restricting effects of which, with its production one-sidedness, we so often notice in their successors” (p. 253). To clarify his idea, Engels described Leonardo da Vinci who “was not only a great painter but also a great mathematician, mechanic and engineer, to whom the most diverse branches of physics are indebted for important discoveries” and reviewed the work of Albrecht D�rer, a “painter, engraver, sculptor, and architect” and inventor of a fortification system. Engels also pointed to the great diversity of interests and erudition of other Renaissance figures (p. 253).
Marx’s and Engels’ evaluation of the Renaissance as an age of “the general revolution,” “the greatest progressive revolution,” explains the warm sympathy they felt for the “giants” of that age. They saw the great men of the Renaissance not just as outstanding scholars, artists, or poets, but, at the same time, as great revolutionaries in world science and culture.
Engels considered the most important trait of the heroes of the Renaissance to be that “they almost all live And pursue their activities in the midst of the contemporary movements, in the practical struggle; they take sides and join in the fight, one by speaking and writing, another with the sword, many with both” (p. 253). It is not difficult to see that this was also what Engels expected of the artists of the future. Referring to the ability of the people of the Renaissance to live by the interests of their time, to “take sides,” Engels emphasised those traits which lifted them above the level of the professionally narrow, armchair science of the bourgeoisie, and above the level of the 19th-century bourgeois writers and artists who preached “non-partisanship” and “pure art.” These traits brought the great men of the Renaissance closer to the ideals of socialist culture and of the revolutionary movement of the working class.
Marx and Engels considered Dante one of the great writers whose works announced the transition from the
Middle Ages to the Renaissance. They saw him as a poet and thinker of genius and, at the same time, as an inflexible warrior whose poetic works were infused with Party spirit (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, Moscow! 1976, p. 271) and were inseparable from his political ideals and aspirations. According to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Marx knew the Divina Commedia almost by heart and would often declaim whole sections of it aloud. Marx’s “Introduction” to Capital in fact ends with the great Florentine’s proud words: “Go your own way, and let people say what they will!” The author of Capital placed Dante among his most beloved poets — Goethe, Aeschylus, and Shakespeare. Engels called Dante a person of “unequalled classic perfection” (p. 247) and “a colossal figure” (p. 248). Marx and Engels held the great Spanish writer Cervantes in high esteem too. Paul Lafargue noted that Marx set the author of Don Quixote, together with Balzac, “above all other novelists” (p. 439). Finally, Marx’s and Engels’ admiration for Shakespeare, one of their most beloved writers, is known to all. Both considered his plays with their far-ranging depiction of the life of his time and their immortal characters to be classical examples of realist drama. Lafargue wrote that Marx “made a detailed study” of Shakespeare’s works. “His whole family had a real cult for the great English dramatist” (p. 438). Engels shared his friend’s views on Shakespeare. On December 10, 1873, he wrote to Marx. “There is more life and reality in the first act of the Merry Wives than in all German literature” (p. 260).
The most important comment by the founders of scientific communism about classicism, the literary movement of the 17th-18th centuries, was made by Marx in a letter to Lassalle on July 22, 1861 (p. 269). On the basis of a materialist understanding of the development of culture, Marx in his letter rejected the unhistorical idea that classicism was the result of a misunderstanding of the laws of classical drama and of classical aesthetics, with their famous principle of the three unities. He pointed out that, though the theoreticians of classicism had misunderstood classical Greek drama and Aristotle’s Poetics, this was no accident or a misunderstanding of history, but a historical inevitability. Classicist playwrights “misunderstood” Aristotle because the “misunderstood” Aristotle corresponded exactly to their taste in art and their aesthetic requirements, formed by the specific social and cultural conditions of the time.
Unlike previous historians of culture who were unable to understand the class content of ideas, Marx and Engels uncovered the social, class-historical basis of the ideas of the 18th-century Enlightenment. They showed that the Enlightenment was not just a movement in social thought, but an ideological expression of the interests of the progressive bourgeoisie, which was rising up to struggle against feudal absolutism on the eve of the Great French Revolution.
Marx and Engels held in high esteem the heritage of the English and French 18th-century Enlighteners including their fiction and works on aesthetics. Their comprehensive analysis of the activity of the Enlighteners explains its close links with the life of society and the class struggle during the preparation for the French bourgeois revolution and draws a line between the moderately bourgeois and the democratic elements in their heritage.
Marx’s and Engels’ works and letters show that they had a superb knowledge of both English and French philosophical and economic literature and fiction of the age of the Enlightenment. They do not merely mention Defoe, Swift, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, the Abb� Pr�vost, Beaumarchais, but give laconic and at the same time brilliantly profound and accurate evaluations of them, while also using their works to draw generalisations concerning the most important aspects of literary life in the age of the Enlightenment.
It should also be noted that Marx included Denis Diderot among his favourite writers. He delighted in Diderot’s novels, especially Le Neveu de Rameau, which he called a “unique masterpiece” (p. 279). Engels shared his friend’s
opinion on Diderot and wrote in 1886: “If ever anybody dedicated his whole life to the ‘enthusiasm for truth and justice’ — using this phrase in the good sense — it was Diderot, for instance” (p. 279).
Marx and Engels also wrote about the leading men of the Enlightenment in Germany — Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Wieland. Revealing the economic and socio-political conditions in Germany, whose feudal division and reactionary small-power absolutist system had been hardened as a result of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), they showed that these conditions had made a definite mark on the ideas and feelings of the majority of the most prominent figures of the “great age of German literature” (p. 346). Together with the rebellious spirit and indignation at the social system of the time that were characteristic of German classical literature, it also reflected the feelings of the petty bourgeoisie (the predominating social stratum in Germany) whose inherent characteristic was admiration for and servility towards the powers that be. “Each of them was an Olympian Zeus in his own sphere,” Engels wrote about Goethe and Hegel, “yet neither of them ever quite freed himself from German Philistinism” (p. 349). In spotlighting not only the strong, but also the weaker points in Goethe, Schiller, and other German writers and thinkers of that period, Marx and Engels in no way sought to belittle their immense, world-wide importance. This is confirmed by Marx’s attitude towards Goethe, who, as already mentioned, was one of his most beloved poets. Contemporaries who knew Marx well stated that he was a constant reader of the great German poet’s works. In their writings and conversations, both Marx and Engels frequently quoted from Faust and other works by Goethe. In 1837 the young Marx, while still a student at Berlin University, wrote an epigram defending Goethe against the Lutheran pastor Pustkuchen, who was one of the leaders in the struggle of German reactionaries of the 1830s against the poet. Engels devoted one of his essays in literary criticism to an analysis of Goethe’s
work. This was “German Socialism in Verse and Prose” (pp. 361-74) in which he attacked the aesthetics of German philistine “true socialism.”
Marx’s and Engels’ analysis of West European romanticism is of great importance to the elaboration of a genuinely scientific history of literature. Considering romanticism a reflection of the age beginning after the Great French Revolution, of all its inherent social contradictions, they distinguished between revolutionary romanticism, which rejected capitalism and was striving towards the future, and romantic criticism of capitalism from the point of view of the past. They also differentiated between the romantic writers who idealised the pre-bourgeois social system: they valued those whose works concealed democratic and critical elements under a veneer of reactionary utopias and naive petty-bourgeois ideals, and criticised the reactionary romantics, whose sympathies for the past amounted to a defence of the interests of the nobility. Marx and Engels were especially fond of the ‘Works of such revolutionary romantics as Byron and Shelley.
Marx’s and Engels’ evaluation of the works of 19th-century realist writers has already been mentioned. Marx and Engels considered realist traditions to be the culmination of the whole of the previous literary process. Engels traced their development and enrichment in the works of Guy de Maupassant, of the creators of the Russian realist novel of the second half of the 19th century, and of Norway’s contemporary dramatists. Marx and Engels had a lively interest in Russia and attached great importance to the Russian revolutionary movement. To be better able to follow the development of the economic and social life of Russia, they both learnt Russian. They were well acquainted not only with socio-economic and journalistic writings in Russia, but also with the country’s fiction. They both read the works of Pushkin, Turgenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky, and Dobrolyubov in Russian, while Marx also read Gogol, Nekrasov, and Lermontov in the original. Engels was also acquainted with English translations of the works of Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Khemnitser, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, and Krylov. Marx and Engels thought Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin to be an amazingly accurate depiction of Russian life in the first half of the 19th century. Both were especially fond of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Engels considered these revolutionary writers “two socialist Lessings” (p. 414) and Marx called Chernyshevsky a “great Russian scholar and critic” (p. 415), while comparing Dobrolyubov “as a writer to Lessing and Diderot” (p. 415).
Characteristic of Marx and Engels was their profoundly internationalist approach to literature and art. They paid equal attention to the art of all nations, European and non, European, large and small, believing that every people makes its own unique contribution to the treasure-house of world art and literature. Their interests included the development of art and literature in England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Russia as well as the artistic and cultural treasures of the East or of such small countries as Ireland, Iceland, and Norway. judging by their notes, the ancient cultures of the indigenous inhabitants of the New World also came within their field of vision.
Marx and Engels had a special attitude towards the democratic and revolutionary poets and writers who were close to the proletariat. Throughout their lives, they strove to draw the best progressive writers of their time to the side of the socialist movement and to educate and temper them, while helping them to overcome the weaker aspects of their work. Marx and Engels actively contributed to the formation of a proletarian revolutionary trend in literature.
Marx’s influence on the work of the great German revolutionary poet Heinrich Heine was immense. They met in Paris in 1843. The prime of Heine’s political lyrics and satire comes in 1843-44, when he was in close and friendly contact with Marx. Marx’s influence on Heine is clear in such remarkable works as his poems The Silesian Loom Workers and Germany. A Winter Tale. All his life Marx admired Heine, who was one of the favourite poets in Marx’s family. Engels was in complete agreement with his friend’s sympathies and considered Heine to be “the most eminent of all living German poets” (p. 375). In their struggle against German reaction, Marx and Engels often quoted from Heine’s bitingly satirical poems. Marx’s and Engels’ ideological influence played an exceptional role in Heine’s development as an artist and helped him to realise that the communist revolution would inevitably be victorious.
Marx and Engels were close friends of the German poets Georg Weerth and Ferdinand Freiligrath, with whom they worked side by side on the Neue Rheinische Zeitung during the revolution of 1848-1849, Engels called Weerth “the German proletariat’s first and most important poet” (p. 402). After Weerth’s death, Marx and Engels carefully collected his literary works. In the 1880s Engels vigorously promoted these in the German Social-Democratic press.
It was only thanks to ‘Marx’s and Engels’ influence that Freiligrath became, in 1848-49, one of the classics of German revolutionary poetry. His poems written at that time are closely linked to Marx’s and Engels’ ideas and are his best. The care and attention Marx and Engels showed for Freiligrath is a good example of their attitude towards revolutionary poets and of how they tried to help them in their noble cause. When Marx recommended Freiligrath to his comrade Joseph Weydemeyer, in 1852, for work on the journal Revolution, he specially asked Weydemeyer to write a friendly, praising letter to the poet to encourage him. It is no coincidence that Freiligrath’s importance as a poet began to decline as soon as he moved away from Marx and Engels in the 1850s.
Marx and Engels had close links with many French and English revolutionary writers, in particular with the Chartist leader Ernest Jones. His best poems, written in the latter 1840s, show the influence of Marx’s and Engels’ ideas.
After Marx’s death, Engels continued in the 1880s and 1890s to keep careful track of the revolutionary writings of those English authors who were ideologically close to the English socialist movement. This can be seen from Engels’ letter to the writer Margaret Harkness (pp. 89-92) who had sent him her short story “A Poor Girl,” his numerous comments about the plays of the English socialist Edward Aveling, and his notes on the ideological development of a number of other writers.
Important statements by Engels on the subject of proletarian art can also be found in his letters written toward the end of his life to German Social-Democratic leaders.
In this way, Marx and Engels strove to foster a new type of writer and artist who, assimilating the finest traditions of classical literature, would take an active, creative part in the proletariat’s struggle for emancipation, proceeding from a broad understanding of the experiences and the tasks of the revolutionary struggle.
This collection also contains valuable statements by Marx and Engels on the flowering of art in the future communist society. The founders of Marxism saw the contradictions in the development of art under capitalism as a manifestation of the antagonistic nature of bourgeois society as a whole and considered the solution of these problems to be possible only after the proletarian revolution and the social reorganisation of society.
Marx and Engels showed brilliant foresight in anticipating the basic traits of the new, communist society. Communism is above all true freedom for the all-round and harmonious development of the individual. “The realm of freedom,” said Marx, ‘actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases...” (p. 183).
Labour freed from exploitation becomes, under socialism, the source of all spiritual (and aesthetic) creativity. Marx and Engels point out that only given true economic, political, and spiritual freedom can man’s creative powers develop to the full and that only proletarian revolution offers unbounded opportunities of endless progress in the development of literature. The great historical mission of the proletariat consists in the communist rebuilding of the world. It was in the proletariat that Marx and Engels saw the social force which could change the world and provide for further progress not only in economics and politics, but also in culture, the force which would bring about the conditions required for the full realisation of mankind’s higher moral and aesthetic values.
Table of Contents
The joy of science
A new paradigm-shifting science curriculum engages students with personalized learning and travel to virtual worlds
Alum Sean Swentek, and his family, Aira, Lourdes and Sia. Photo by Sabira Madady
By Bret Hovell
Editor's note: This story originally appears in the fall 2024 issue of ASU Thrive magazine.
Petting fuzzy caterpillars, growing juicy strawberries and studying birds are some ways Sean, ’13, and Lourdes Swentek immerse their little girls in nature. The family goes to the tide pools near their home to look at starfish and sea anemones, occasionally stays up late to spot constellations and even works out together.
“Sia’s 6 years old and really likes anything that involves getting her hands interacting with the environment. She’s just super curious and wants to know about everything,” says Sean. “And so for us, it’s fun to give her that education that she models to her little sister, Aira.”
Sean works as vice president of marketing for a sustainability technology startup, and Lourdes is a trauma and critical care surgeon. He studied digital marketing and ethics and marketing at ASU Online.
“Lourdes knew from age 9 that she wanted to be a surgeon. She’s always been in love with the human body, and how it works, and she’s constantly working on medical inventions.”
So, Sean says, the importance of science makes perfect sense to the two of them.
“I think a lot of people nowadays are not as in touch with the natural world, with biology, with the basic science knowledge that you need to live successfully and healthy as a human.”
Which means that fostering the love of nature and curiosity in their children is important, he says.
Encouraging this curiosity is why Sean’s kids are excited about science, which is a good thing, because getting children excited about science is crucial for our economy, for addressing health challenges and for smart decision-making in our everyday lives.
“It is 100% clear to anyone who has studied the current economy, and the projections of the future economy, that we will need more — vastly more — students who are comfortable in an environment that requires scientific thinking and familiarity with scientific tools,” says Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, and a former U.S. under secretary of education responsible for federal higher-education policies.
A resource used by millions
Have kids or looking to make science more accessible for yourself? Check out the free Ask a Biologist, which features learning materials across numerous topics and formats — including stories, games, activities, videos and more. Go to askabiologist.asu.edu .
That is a consensus opinion. The number of jobs requiring STEM knowledge is set to grow by more than 10 million in the next six years, according to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
ASU is committed to helping graduates land great jobs in their career professions, including in-demand STEM jobs. ASU is ranked second for employability out of all public U.S. universities, according to the 2024 Global Employability University Ranking & Survey.
But to meet that demand, educators and others need to engage students in a way that makes science accessible and relevant enough that more students — maybe especially students who don’t think of themselves as scientists — want to pursue it.
In that we have work to do, Mitchell says. “We’re doing a terrible job teaching science,” he says. “The quality is underwhelming throughout America’s public and private education system.”
Margaret Honey, who chaired the committee that wrote the National Academies report, agrees. “Scientific thinking is a set of habits of mind that are about curiosity, understanding, evaluating information and evidence,” she says. “[It’s] about using those tools to build connections to others.”
But she says those tools — valuable in any job and any part of life — aren’t taught today. Instead science, she says, has been reduced to “a memorization exercise: Read the chapter, answer the questions at the end of the book.”
The current way of teaching science shortchanges students, Honey adds. It makes science inaccessible to those who do not naturally gravitate to it.
Science in everyday life
The current way of teaching science denies access to a framework grounded in science for finding answers to the questions life asks, Honey says. Understanding science is critical for navigating daily, everyday situations.
It comes in handy in the grocery store when you weigh the nutritional information of what goes into the cart. It proves critical when you’re advocating for a loved one and helping them navigate a medical situation, or, when navigating your own health journey, helping you understand what is happening to your body and your options for improving your health. It’s vital for understanding health information you hear about, and to distinguish the misinformation too.
Mitchell adds another point: When people have the tools to understand science deeply, they not only are better able to solve problems, they gain access to the wonder that can come from scientific understanding — be it the microscopic beauty seen upon observing a cell or the awe experienced when grappling with the enormity of the cosmos.
Namita Shah, a computer science major who took the Dreamscape Learn biology labs, says she sees how important science is in everyday life and is excited ASU has created the NeoBio way of learning biology.
Photos by Jill Richards
Because science is critical in our everyday lives, ASU helps make it accessible to everyone so they can, for instance, understand their metabolism, fitness metrics and more.
“Everyone deserves the ability to take a step back and remind themselves of the extraordinary beauty and majesty of the world that we live in and the world around us,” he says.
NeoBio emerges
ASU has long recognized the need for more and better-educated STEM graduates.
“STEM has typically been taught the same way for all of time,” says Lisa Flesher, the head of ASU’s education through exploration initiatives. “And nationally, nearly 50% of students who sign up to be in STEM fields drop out and do something else. We had to do something.”
Enter NeoBio, ASU’s paradigm-shifting approach to teaching science. Currently, in-person and online students use NeoBio in both of ASU’s intro biology courses.
NeoBio (“neo” is a Greek prefix that means “new”) has two main pillars: adaptive learning, which replaces the conventional, lecture-and-textbook learning of a traditional class — and immersion in a virtual reality lab, which uses powerful technology and narrative-style storytelling. The concept of “Neo” learning applying adaptive learning and immersion will eventually cover all kinds of inquiry, from biology to chemistry to art history and beyond.
Michael Angilletta, a professor in ASU’s School of Life Sciences and the associate dean for Learning Innovation at EdPlus, and his team have spent years studying what employers want and need. He says that teaching scientific skills better prepares students for the workforce.
“Those skills are transferable,” Angilletta says. “Because the job you have today may not be the one you have 10 years from now. What we’re doing is producing master learners in a way that’s better than what we have been doing.”
So far, it seems to be working. In a controlled study comparing student outcomes, learners randomly assigned to NeoBio biology classes outperformed their peers in traditional biology classes by almost a full letter grade. That improvement held across all demographic and socioeconomic groups and leveled the playing field between students who had studied biology in the past and those who had not.
Nationally, nearly 50% of students who sign up to be in STEM fields drop out and do something else. We had to do something. Lisa Flesher Head of ASU’s Education through Exploration Initiatives
John VandenBrooks, professor in the School of Applied Sciences and Arts and associate dean for Immersive Learning for EdPlus at ASU, says the new curriculum is more rigorous and requires more problem-solving than traditional courses.
“With this rigorous curriculum, we never could have imagined such outcomes,” VandenBrooks says.
Adaptive learning
Here’s how the adaptive learning portion of NeoBio works together In an online course. In a college biology class delivered online, instead of sitting in a lecture hall or reading from a textbook, you learn new concepts by watching short videos and immediately solving problems related to what you just learned.
Suppose you get one of those problems wrong and aren’t sure why. Instead of waiting to ask, the software will identify the concept you didn’t understand. And the very next prompt will teach you the information you misunderstood or forgot.
“Then you’re automatically given another similar problem,” Angilletta says. “So you have to solve it until you get it right.”
This happens in real time, and each student gets personalized refreshers.
One such student is Taylor Aschenbrenner, a physical therapist assistant in Kansas who is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Medical Sciences through ASU Online. She took the adaptive learning modules that are built into ASU’s introductory biology course, BIO181, and now is experiencing the modules in BIO182.
“Adaptive learning is extremely helpful. It gives you options to listen to the lecture, then you go ahead and take a quiz. And then if you didn’t quite understand something in the lecture, it goes through it with you. It tells you which questions you didn’t quite understand and you practice those,” she says.
“I also like that you can pace yourself, so you’re not getting thrown all this material at one time,” Aschenbrenner says. “I thought it was really well portioned out.”
A virtual reality aspect
Brooke Arneson, a student in Barrett, The Honors College, started hearing buzz about NeoBio’s virtual reality lab before she walked into the introductory biology classroom as a sophomore.
“So she’s like, ‘Brooke, it’s a virtual reality thing. It’s crazy!’” Arneson says, channeling her friend’s enthusiasm.
It’s called Dreamscape Learn, and it is unique in higher education.
When Arneson, a biomedical engineering major from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, put on the virtual reality headset, she was thrilled when she saw the vibrant, colorful Alien Zoo, an immersive and beautiful setting for NeoBio.
This world is the creation of Dreamscape Learn, which Walter Parkes, the former head of DreamWorks Motion Pictures, leads in collaboration with ASU faculty. The result allows students to travel through the virtual space, to feel like they are flying around this foreign world, exploring its terrain and marveling at its alien beauty. In this imaginative setting, students become scientists to solve novel problems, analyze data and ultimately help the creatures in an intergalactic wildlife sanctuary.
The storytelling is compelling. The technology makes students feel like they are really in an Alien Zoo. And the combination seems to drive students to work harder.
“They care,” VandenBrooks says. “They feel like they’re the ones who have to solve the problems.”
Students taking NeoBio classes on campus experience Dreamscape in a fully immersive way — sitting in chairs that vibrate as they move through the virtual world and reaching out to touch buttons that appear in the ship they are piloting. ASU Online students get the same storytelling in a two-dimensional environment. And as virtual reality headsets become more affordable and more students have their own, ASU will begin offering the three-dimensional experience to online students as well.
“It’s the compelling storytelling that is key,” says VandenBrooks. “And that is available to our on-campus students and our ASU Online students.”
The future of science education
Flesher says that soon, ASU will have created an entire NeoSTEM ecosystem. Students working on any problem in the sciences or mathematics will be directed to the information they need to succeed.
Bret Hovell is an Emmy Award-winning journalist who covered the White House, the Capitol and national politics for CBS News and ABC News. He has spent the last decade working in higher education.
More Science and technology
Gaining a global microelectronics perspective
Microelectronics are critical to almost every facet of our lives. However, the underlying technologies and what it’s like to work in the microelectronics, or semiconductor, industry are still a…
'20 Years of Discovery' at ASU's Biodesign Institute: Diagnostics, DNA research and plant-based therapies
Editor’s note: The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University is celebrating its landmark 20th anniversary. This is the fourth installment in a series called “20 Years of Discovery.” Each…
Using AI to reshape the user experience in higher education
Editor's note: This expert Q&A is part of our “AI is everywhere ... now what?” special project exploring the potential (and potential pitfalls) of artificial intelligence in our lives. Explore…
Review of: Olga Zhukova, An essay on Russian culture: philosophy of history, literature and art. Moscow: “Soglasie” Publisher house, 2019. 588 pages. Hardcover: ISBN 978-5-907038-50-9, € 17
This book review discusses the new research of the Russian philosopher and cultural study scholar Olga A. Zhukova. What is special about the Russian intellectual movement Russian Europeanism? Zhukova reconstructs the ideas of Russian Europeanism, and she evaluates the approaches of Russian thinkers to national cultural history. The author manages to introduce the reader to current discussions about the specifics of the Russian cultural and philosophical “project” and to propose new approaches for the interpretation of the intellectual and literary heritage of Russia. In addition to offering a critical analysis of Zhukova’s volume, the book review presents this thought provoking monograph as a great piece of scholarly work.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
This new book by Russian philosopher and cultural historian Olga A. Zhukova continues her long standing study of the history of Russian philosophy and culture (see Zhukova 2008 , 2013 , 2014 , 2017 ). The topic of this new monograph is the historical experience of Russia and the complex interplay between its cultural-political and spiritual-artistic traditions.
The central focus of Zhukova’s study is the issue of the discovery of self-awareness in Russian history and culture, posed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by authors (including emigrées) of the most influential and controversial Russian intellectual movement, namely, Russian Europeanism .
The author of the 600-page volume endeavors to explicate, evaluate and categorize the approaches of Russian thinkers to national cultural history and the various ways they characterize Russian philosophy, culture, literature, and art. Zhukova sees her task “in identifying the genesis and continuity of the forms of cultural creativity, in understanding the spiritual and intellectual foundations of its traditions and practices” (p. 7). The author defines this intellectual procedure as “an analytical reconstruction of the social and spiritual history of Russia” (ibid.).
Zhukova understands “culture” as “the process of formation and transmission of social practices and structures of individual and collective consciousness with their own mechanism of self-organization and reproduction at the level of connotations and meanings” (p. 10). Conceiving “culture” in this way, she recognizes a certain similarity between her own definition and the concept of “semiosphere,” formulated by a prominent semiotician and cultural historian, Yuri M. Lotman. It is worth emphasizing in this regard that Zhukova's book contains a significant amount of the author's well-developed ideas, and its framework is based on her original philosophical concept of culture, which she prefers to call ideal-centric .
As Zhukova points out, its central tenet is that “culture is considered as a sum of individual and collective actions (acts) of sense-givings, which are the most common expressions of a person as an intelligent being, and which ensure the reproduction and development of a social community within the horizon of ideal notions of oneself” (p. 14). This allows the author to consider such cultural practices as religion, philosophy, literature, art, and science in their continuous interaction, and include spiritual (transcendental) ideals into the cultural horizon. The author’s approach corresponds significantly to the Russian spiritual and intellectual tradition with its special attention to the issues of religious metaphysics, to the identification of the key problem for European thought: the relationship between mind and faith.
Reconstructing the ideas of Russian Europeanism, Zhukova demonstrates both the virtuoso work of a scholar, masterfully working with various primary and secondary sources, and the high analytical ability of a philosophical theorist of culture. In tackling the complex issues of the history of Russian thought the author applies her original theoretical models and updated methodological tools, thereby providing not only an understanding of Russian culture as an “already established” phenomenon of history but also projecting its ongoing development.
Keeping at distance between the science and philosophy of Russian Europeanists, Zhukova insists that her interpretation is one of the possible ways to read Russian culture, in a way that is free from the tasks of advocacy and, even more so, apology for this line of national culture (p. 11). Zhukova certainly accomplishes her primary research aim very successfully, thus allowing for her monograph to be commended as a significant contribution to the study of Russian philosophy and culture and for placing this book among the leading ranks of the latest research on this subject (quite a limited number, I must say).
However, the intention of the book’s author is not limited to the task of creating a typological model of Russian culture as a mode of existence of the nation in history. First, Zhukova's scholarly position and her historical–critical approach stand in sharp opposition to a variety of attempts to mythologize Russian culture as such. By removing rushed, superficial (and, in essence, politically dogmatic) ideologemes that often accompany various discussions of Russian culture, the author manages to create a more accurate (and an even, level-headed) image of such a complex phenomenon as the Russian cultural and philosophical tradition, which remains in a constant process of self-identification and search for new affirmations of its “Russianness.”
Further, Zhukova's book significantly expands the arsenal of conceptual and methodological tools for the establishment of a critical history of Russian thought and actualizes the discourse about Russian culture in the context of Modernity. The author manages to introduce the reader to current discussions about the specifics of the Russian cultural and philosophical “project” and, what is especially important, to propose new approaches for the interpretation of the intellectual and literary heritage of Russia. The significance of this book also lies in the fact that it further enriches and conceptualizes the language of description and interpretation, precisely “translating” the “archetypal” ideas and intuitions central to Russian thought into the language of contemporary philosophy, thus revealing their actual meaning.
The book itself is very ambitious. It conceptualizes key themes of Russian culture, formulated by Russian authors “as meaningful questions of national existence, historical creativity of the nation and spiritual self-improvement of the individual” (p. 2). The author specifically notes that it is not her intent to give a “ready-made” definition of Russian culture. Instead, she sees her goal as the clarification and reinterpretation of philosophical, artistic, and aesthetic narratives of national culture in the diverse creative work of “Russian Europeans.”
To accomplish this goal, Zhukova (who has already proved herself as a master of the “intellectual portrait”) turns to the analysis of the lives and intellectual legacies of the great Russian thinkers who, in their works, synthesized philosophical and literary ideas, often acting as practical politicians. Among them are Pyotr J. Chaadaev, Pyotr A. Vyazemsky, Alexander S. Pushkin, Alexander I. Herzen, Timofey N. Granovsky, Ivan S. Turgenev, Nikolai G. Chernyshevsky, Vasily O. Klyuchevsky, Pyotr B. Struve, Vasily A. Maklakov, Semyon L. Frank, Boris P. Vysheslavtsev, Alexander N. Benois, Sergei P. Diaghilev, and Boris K. Zaitsev.
The first part of the book, “Philosophy of Russian History: Dilemmas of National Existence” (pp. 33–299), examines the most important philosophical and historical concepts of Russian thinkers and their specific takes on the problem of Russia and Europe. Of special interest in this section is an analysis of the concept of “Russian freedom” (in its various connotations), and a discussion of the religious roots of the confrontation between “autocratic” and “emancipatory” projects in Russian political history.
The heading of the second part of the book is “Russian Culture in Search of an Ideal: Literature and Art as an Experience of Philosophical Self-knowledge” (pp. 303–505). This section offers a philosophical reconstruction of the artistic, religious and political ideals of Russian culture in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, how they are expressed in the works of the writers, philosophers and artists of the Golden and Silver Age.
Viewed in its entirety, the book shows precisely how the ideal-axiological core of Russian culture really “works.” This “work,” according to Zhukova, takes place in the hereditary continuity of the social, historical and spiritual-creative experience, including the conditions of powerful socio-cultural transformations of our time, which is convincingly demonstrated in the final section of the book (pp. 506–537).
The most significant and impressive feature of the book is its ability to view each of its many “characters” both as a “collector of Russian common cultural meanings” (Zhukova’s term) and as an acute, polemically charged author creating her own direction in the history of Russian culture and, in this way, testing Russian cultural integrity “to its breaking point.” It is indeed an intellectual pleasure to follow the author’s analytical thought, who looks at the twists and turns of life and creative searches of such different “Russian Europeans” as, for example, Chaadaev, Herzen, Struve, or Maklakov.
This is a highly informative and thought-provoking book, which I highly recommend to all specialists in Russian thought and culture. Everyone who wants to learn about Russian culture would benefit enormously from this book. It is a valuable and engaging contribution to the study of Russian philosophical and cultural tradition.
Zhukova, O. A. (2008). Metafizika tvorchestva. Iskusstvo i religiia v istorii kul'tury Rossii [Metaphysics of creativity. Art and religion in Russian culture]. Moscow: SFGA.
Zhukova, O. A. (2013). Na puti k Russkoi Evrope: intellektualy v bor'be za svobodu i kul'turu v Rossii [On the way to Russian Europe. Intellectuals and their struggle for freedom and culture in Russia]. Moscow: Liberal Mission Foundation.
Zhukova, O. A. (2014). Izbrannye raboty po filosofii kul'tury. Kul'turnyi kapital. Russkaia kul'tura i social'nye praktiki sovremennoi Rossii [Selected works on the philosophy of culture. Cultural capital. Russian Culture and the Social Practices of Modern Russia]. Moscow: Soglasie.
Zhukova, O. A. (2017). Filosofiia russkoi kul'tury. Metafizicheskaia perspektiva cheloveka i istorii [Philosophy of Russian culture. Metaphysical perspective of the human being and history]. Moscow: Soglasie.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation
Alexei Alexeevich Kara-Murza
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Alexei Alexeevich Kara-Murza .
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
I approve the Journal policy in ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS.
Additional information
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Kara-Murza, A.A. Review of: Olga Zhukova, An essay on Russian culture: philosophy of history, literature and art. Moscow: “Soglasie” Publisher house, 2019. 588 pages. Hardcover: ISBN 978-5-907038-50-9, € 17. Stud East Eur Thought 72 , 407–411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-020-09400-3
Download citation
Accepted : 17 November 2020
Published : 08 December 2020
Issue Date : December 2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-020-09400-3
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Philosophy of Russian culture
Philosophy of Russian history
Russian thought
Russian europeanism
Religiosity
Russian literature
Ideal-centric model
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
open search
Open Today: 10 a.m.–5 p.m.
Welcome to The Huntington
Plan Your Visit
One of the world's great research libraries with 12 million items spanning the 11th to 21st centuries, with works on display in the Library exhibition halls
British, European, American, and Asian art including more than 45,000 world-renowned examples of decorative arts, paintings, prints and drawings, photography, and sculpture
Encompassing approximately 130 acres, the Botanical Gardens contain more than a dozen spectacular themed gardens with some 83,000 living plants including rare and endangered species
Explore the gardens and galleries, conduct research, and learn from the collections.
Admission Info and Tickets
1151 Oxford Road San Marino, CA 91108
What's On
Detail of a skeleton figure from Andreas Vesalius’ De humani corporis fabrica , 1543. | The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens.
Anatomy of a Reunion: Bringing Vesalius’ “Fabrica” Home
The Huntington has acquired a 1543 “Fabrica” by Andreas Vesalius, whose book revolutionized the field of anatomy. The volume’s reunion with the Los Angeles County Medical Association’s collection at The Huntington not only restores a cornerstone of medical history but fosters deeper connections among the Library’s medical treasures.
The author photo and cover of Thomas Young’s Afro-American Freeman’s Light: A Book of Original Poems and Songs , 1896. | The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens.
Overlooked: Thomas Young’s “Afro-American Freeman’s Light”
Thomas Young’s 1896 volume of original poems and songs is among the few books by African American authors to have been published in the American West before the 20th century. Young’s as-yet-unheard voice belongs to the longer tradition of Black literature and, more broadly, American literature.
“Raqib Shaw: Ballads of East and West” to Showcase Fantastical Paintings
The Huntington will present the culmination of the national touring exhibition “Raqib Shaw: Ballads of East and West” from Nov. 16, 2024, through March 3, 2025. Raqib Shaw is a London-based artist known for opulent and fantastical works that blend Eastern and Western influences to create mesmerizing paintings that merge fable, history, and autobiography.
Annabel Adams. | Photo: Michael Farmer.
Annabel Adams Named Vice President of Communications and Marketing
The Huntington has appointed Annabel Adams to the position of vice president of communications and marketing. Most recently serving as assistant dean of communications at UCLA’s School of Law, Adams has nearly two decades of experience leading communications and marketing teams in higher education, humanities, and legal and health-technology sectors.
Explore More
Take a tour, watch videos, learn about the gardens, explore art, and more.
JOIN & GIVE
We need your support.
Your support helps keep The Huntington's mission of enrichment, education and stewardship alive for generations to come.
Become a Member
QUICK LINKS
Bahasa Indonesia
Slovenščina
Science & Tech
Russian Kitchen
Contemporary art and modern science collide in Moscow
The environmental art exhibition “eCONSCIOUSNESS” is part of the ambitious SCIENCE ART program directed by the Moscow Lomonosov State University and the Central House of Artists. Source: Press Photo
The Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art will host an installation by the art group Recycle, and the shows “Positive / Negative” and “Videonale.14 on Tour” will be presented. In addition, under a joint project of the Scientific Art of CHA and Moscow State University, the exhibition “eCONSCIOUSNESS” will showcase the latest science-art research projects, which explore the intersection of science and the environment.
In their works, artists actualize the issues of social and environmental responsibility, demonstrating the full range of environmental issues—from the interaction of living organisms and their communities to each other, to their interaction with the environment.
At the science-art exhibition, the "Cockroach Controlled Mobile Robot" by Garnet Hertz from the United States and "Decon" by Marta de Menezes from Portugal can be viewed.
"Cockroach Controlled Mobile Robot". Source: Vimeo
"Decon," created by the artist in 2007, is a reproduction of the work of Piet Mondrian; it is a "living" picture that self-destructs in the exposure process. The picture is produced using materials and techniques of biotechnology: A bacterial plant substance is added to certain pigments and paints the environment in the desired color; then, the paint is destroyed by the same bacteria, Pseudomonas Putida.
"Cockroach Controlled Mobile Robot" is a series of artistic and experimental setups that feature a large Madagascan cockroach driving a motor vehicle with a device made of a Ping-Pong ball. Standing on the ball, the cockroach rotates the ball with its legs and moves the vehicle.
The exhibition's curator, Semen Yerokhin, believes that “eCONSCIOUSNESS” will be interesting for a wide audience—from schoolchildren to professional artists and scientists.
“Though in the classical sense we understand ecology as the relationship and interaction between the different species and their habitats, for many of the exhibited works, the term bio-art environmental is more appropriate. It should be considered a special case of scientific art, when, for creating artistic and scientific works, artists use biotechnology based on innovative achievements of genetics, genomics, proteomics and other advanced areas of biology,” Yerokhin said. “Perhaps the biological arts will be the one direction to define the basic trend of the development of modern art in the next century.”
View the video by RBTH: Science and art in unison at the Frontier exhibition in Moscow
The program is designed so that interesting events will be held each day. The most informative day will be Sept.18, when the conference and the opening of the exhibition will be held. The conference, titled "The aesthetic and ethical aspects of synthetic biology technologies in contemporary art," will open at 11 a.m. and will be attended by leading Russian and foreign experts—philosophers, art historians, natural scientists, and artists using technology in the practice of synthetic biology.
Among the foreign artists expected are Garnet Hertz and Marta de Menezes, James Auger and Jimmy Loizeau from the U.K., and Juan Castro from Japan.
A work by James Auger and Jimmy Loizeau, “Carnivorous domestic entertainment robots,” contains devices that combine the functions of disinfestation with the function of an alternative source of electricity. At first glance, it is the usual fixtures (which house an ultraviolet "decoy" and a microbial fuel cell) in which a colony of bacteria decomposes the remains of insects flying into the light, using them to generate electricity to keep the lamp working.
On Sept. 18 at 7 p.m., a master class by the artist and biologist Juan M. Castro from Japan will be held, entitled “On cholesterol, neurons and the emergence of artificial cells.” Castro works at the intersection of media art, microbiology and biochemistry, in projects related to the visualization of biological processes in real time. He was born in Bogotá, Colombia, but he currently lives and works in Tokyo. In 2008, he founded the association Biodynamic Geometries in Tokyo, specializing in experimental scientific and artistic studies of organic life. His interactive installation at “eCONSCIOUSNESS” is called “Impulse.”
Castro already visited Moscow in April 2012, when he showed his work "Heliotropika." So far, he has created five installations. The installation he is coming with this time around is named "Fat between two worlds."
“As materials, fats offer us new understandings about organic matter,” says Castro. “We can use their principles and create new forms of architecture and design based on self-assembly and molecular interactions.” Castro believes that an international event like Science Art in Russia is significant for several reasons. “First, this exhibition wants to cover a relatively new interdisciplinary field that has not yet been coherently described and analyzed.”
Castro also believes that this exhibition will develop new conceptual and practical instruments for the future interactions between aesthetics and life sciences. The exhibition will provide thick descriptions of how emerging biotechnologies, as new material for creation, are managed in relation to art and design principles. In addition, according to the artist, this exhibition will explain how biological art practices can help Russia to confront issues regarding the role of life sciences and the role of new aesthetics in society.
Science art exhibition to be opened in Moscow
For kids, there will be a children’s program organized by Master of Art Design and led by Nikolai Selivanov. The program will be based on the creative topic “Animals of the Future” and oriented toward the development of creative thinking about ecological problems.
The exhibition will present “Nasekosm" (a puzzle created by children 6-8 years old), "Fish that lived among the people" (the collective work of children 8-11 years old) and "Skin" (the design ideas of children 10-12 years old).
The exhibition’s purpose is to draw public attention to the problems of environmental protection and the development of environmental awareness in the community through the arts, as well as the formation of new methods in the interaction of living organisms and their communities with each other and with the environment.
Unfortunately, projects by Russian artists will not on display. According to Yerokhin, this shows once again that, in Russia, the process of forming of an interdisciplinary platform of scientific art is far behind the global trend.
All rights reserved by Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
to our newsletter!
Get the week's best stories straight to your inbox
This website uses cookies. Click here to find out more.
The Department of Political Science
The dark side of politics: essays on the unpleasant realities of political life.
Benjamin Ginsberg (author)
Routledge Publishers , 2024
Purchase Online
This series of scholarly chapters explores the unpleasant realities of modern politics – and American politics in particular – by examining how self- interest, war, violence, deception and institutional failure continue to characterize the political landscape.
Author Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the political world in which we like to think we live – the world of civic engagement, representative government and principled political discourse – is fleeting and fragile, resting uneasily upon the foundation of a harsh and dark reality.
Making a fundamental contribution to our understandings of politics, this book is an important read for students and scholars of American Politics and Government.
Politics latest: New poll makes grim reading for Farage - as PM tells COBRA meeting to 'maintain high alert'
Sir Keir Starmer stressed the need to "maintain high alert" for more disorder as he chaired another emergency COBRA meeting. Meanwhile, new polling suggests support for Nigel Farage has plummeted since the unrest began last week.
Thursday 8 August 2024 20:55, UK
PM stresses need to 'maintain high alert' for further unrest
But says swift sentencing of rioters should be 'important lesson'
Labour councillor arrested on suspicion of encouraging murder
Farage accused of helping spread conspiracy theories
London mayor 'astonished' by Tory leadership hopeful's comments
Listen: How well has the PM handled riots?
Mhari Aurora: Starmer can't be sure he's out of woods just yet
Darren McCaffrey: Farage may struggle to have his cake and eat it
Explained: Robert Jenrick and the Allahu Akbar row | What does 'two-tier policing' mean - and does it exist?
UK riots latest: Follow updates on arrests and sentences
Our political correspondent Darren McCaffrey has spotted some interesting polling about Nigel Farage.
According to YouGov, the Reform leader's favourability ratings have fallen since the start of the riots in the UK.
He is viewed unfavourably by every voter group in the UK except Reform backers.
This includes Leave voters - his score with them going from +7 to -4.
The proportion of 2024 Tory voters that have a negative view of him has risen from 52% to 61% - and 47% of the public believe he holds some responsibility for the rioting.
Farage under fire from multiple sides
Darren said: "I think he's trying to strike this balance between trying to lean into some of the causes potentially behind at least the protests, if not the violence, but at the same time trying to condemn them.
"The question is, can he have his cake and eat it? Can he effectively walk that fine balance?"
Mr Farage questioned the initial police response to the stabbing in Southport, accusing them of withholding information.
The Reform leader has since condemned the violence on the streets - but made allegations of " two-tier policing ", claims which have been denied and criticised by the prime minister and Met Police chief.
Mel Stride, the Tory leadership hopeful, was heavily critical of Mr Farage this morning when speaking to Sky News - and it could be that more Tories come out to attack him.
With yet another COBRA meeting in the bag for the prime minister, the Politics Hub is signing off for the evening.
For continued coverage of the response to the riots, including the latest arrests and court hearings, check out our dedicated blog below:
As things stand, the Politics Hub won't be running tomorrow, so any political news, reaction, and analysis relating to the unrest will be in the above blog - do follow along for the latest updates.
Thanks for joining us today, and have a good evening.
Sir Keir Starmer has told his ministers and police chiefs they need to "maintain high alert" despite last night's anticipated wave of far-right unrest failing to materialise.
Sky News understands that was the PM's main message from tonight's COBRA meeting - his third of the week.
Sir Keir thanked the police and wider criminal justice system, saying the high levels of policing in key areas last night helped deter rioters - as did the swift sentencing of those convicted so far.
The prime minister has condemned a "deeply concerning" rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK this year.
Charity CST, which is dedicated to protecting Jewish communities, reported almost 2,000 cases in the first half of 2024 - a record high.
There were at least 200 every month - something which had only happened five times prior to October 2023.
That marks the point that Hamas launched its brutal attack on Israel, which was followed by the now 10-month bombardment of Gaza.
Sir Keir Starmer thanked the CST for its work and said: "Jewish people, and all those from faith communities, deserve to feel safe on our streets.
"We will work together to eradicate discrimination of any kind."
While last night didn't see the unrest many had feared, tonight's COBRA meeting comes ahead of what ministers fear could be days of further protests and disorder.
Sir Keir Starmer has vowed he will not "let up" so far as responding to threats from those bent on violence, and has held talks with police chiefs again this evening to discuss what could happen.
Our crime correspondent Martin Brunt has reported there are fears the new football season kicking off this weekend could spell trouble.
It comes after policing minister Dame Diana Johnson told Sky News earlier that intelligence points to more potential protests.
Read more from our political reporter Alix Culbertson 👇
We've been reporting in the Politics Hub today on the arrest of a Labour councillor over comments he made at one of the counter-protests that took place around the country last night.
First came footage from the event, which appeared to show a man calling for "fascist" rioters to have their throats "cut".
Nigel Farage was among those who shared it, and called on police to arrest the man responsible.
He was named online as Dartford Labour councillor Ricky Jones, and the party moved quickly to suspend him.
We then heard from the Met Police, who said they were urgently investigating the video - and later came an arrest on suspicion of encouraging murder.
For the full story and where we've got to as of tonight, our political reporter Faye Brown has you covered 👇
Sir Keir Starmer was in the West Midlands earlier before returning to London for tonight's COBRA meeting.
The PM visited a mosque in Solihull, and has just put out a post on X thanking local leaders he met there - and the police - for "keeping our communities safe".
Our team have spotted cabinet ministers leaving the COBRA meeting in the last few minutes, so hopefully we'll get an update on what was discussed from Downing Street before too long.
We'll bring it to you if and when we do.
By Faye Brown , political reporter
Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley has knocked back claims of "two-tier policing" as "complete nonsense".
He said such claims - pedalled online by Nigel Farage and Elon Musk - put officers dealing with the ongoing riots at risk.
The phrase is used to describe the impression that some protests and demonstrations are dealt with more harshly than others.
What are the origins of 'two-tier' policing?
The term has been used to suggest police are more heavy-handed with people on the right of the political spectrum than the left.
Even before the current rioting in the UK, the idea was propagated by the likes of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson, actor-turned political activist Laurence Fox, and former ex-minister Robert Jenrick.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage summed up the sentiment when he claimed that "ever since the soft policing of the Black Lives Matter protests, the impression of two-tier policing has become widespread".
'Difference between riot and protest'
However, critics of those who have used the term say there is a clear difference between legal protests and the riots, which has seen mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers attacked, police officers hospitalised, and shops smashed and looted.
One of the strongest rebukes came from Dame Priti Patel, who was home secretary during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020.
She told Times Radio: "What we saw during the pandemic, we saw protest. We believe in free speech. We saw protests being policed.
"What we're seeing right now is thuggery and disorder and criminality. There is a complete distinction between the two."
What is the law on protests in the UK?
Protest is legal in the UK and the right to freedom of expression is also protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.
However, this only applies to peaceful protest and does not extend to any violence inflicted or damage caused during a protest.
As pointed out by Chris Hobbs, a former Special Branch officer writing for the Police Oracle website , arrests have been made at pro-Palestinian protests when there has been suspected criminal offences, as has been the case during climate protests and BLM demonstrations.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is banking on the rapid sentencing of convicted rioters putting people off committing more disorder.
There have been more arrests today - not just over the violence we've seen over the past week, but also inaccurate information about the Southport attack shared online.
False claims about the suspect helped ignite the riots.
People have been sentenced today, too - some to several years in jail.
For the latest on the response of the police and the courts, head to our dedicated live blog:
The unrest of the past week has seen members of the far right target Muslim communities and mosques.
It's reignited calls for the government to adopt an official definition of Islamophobia, with the hope it could help educate sections of the public and clamp down on violence and abuse.
Rishi Sunak's government refused to adopt one, suggesting it could negatively impact freedom of speech, and instead referred to cases of "anti-Muslim hatred".
And it appears the new government won't be quick to adopt one either.
Asked directly on Sky News if it would consider one, communities minister Alex Norris danced around the question.
'Still people out there who want to cause disorder'
"Our focus is on the next few days," he said, adding there'll be "plenty of other things we can look at" when the risk of more unrest has passed.
Mr Norris said while there are "still people out there who want to cause violent disorder", the government's focus is on ensuring police "have the powers they need" and that "swift justice" can be delivered.
We've spotted cabinet ministers and police chiefs arriving for tonight's COBRA meeting in Whitehall.
Met boss Sir Mark Rowley and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood are among those we've seen.
The meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, will discuss what happened last night and what may still be to come - the government has suggested more protests could be in the offing this week.
We'll bring you updates from the meeting whenever we can.
Our School Exhibition Report And Review Essay Example (400 Words
What is an Art?
(PDF) An Essay on the Art and Science of Teaching
Wonder of Science essay in very simple words
What Is Art Essay Examples
VIDEO
Write an essay on Science is a blessing or Boon
Science + Art 🧪🎨 #scienceandgiggles
Science Art and commerce
science art experiment science #experiment #science #viral #vlog
When science meets art
"Sometimes Science Is More #Art Than Science" S01 Ep 6 #digitalart #painting #VR #rickandmorty
COMMENTS
Art and science: Intersections of art and science through time and
Art and science have coexisted, often indistinguishable from each other, across time and space. A wealth of early documented examples comes from the Islamic culture, where art and science joined in intricate star‐shaped architectural geometries, and the use of "Nur" (light) and material science to design utensils and lettering in manuscripts 2.
Art and Science: One Culture or Two, Difference and Similarity Essay
As science and art develop, as their view of the world becomes more highly elaborated, they make these judgments differently (Essays of an Information (a), 5). Summary In sum, art and science represent and belong to one culture based on creativity, historical development of society, research and scientific methods of discoveries.
PDF Art and Science. Part 1. The Art-Science Connection
The Art-Science Connection Number 8 February, 20, 1989 Ilk two-part essay examines relationships between the worlds of art and science. Part 1 considers various theoretical and historical connections between the two spheres, Photography and other tech-nological developments and their contributions to art are also discussed, as are medical and ...
The relationship between science and art
To many, science embodies the rational and analytical end of human experience, while art comes from the empathic and expressive. Science can prove truths to us, while art can only make us feel them. These differences are compounded as science becomes responsible for the official narrative of our lives, through medicine and genetics, while ...
Science and Art
Science and Art. by Leonid I. Ponomarev. T he limitations of science are the most evident in attempts to use scientific methods to unveil the secrets of art. Science 'knows everything' about the grand piano: the number, quality and length of its strings; the species of wood used; the composition of the glue, and the finest details of its design.
The Enduring Relationship of Science and Art
Science and art naturally overlap. Both are a means of investigation. Both involve ideas, theories, and hypotheses that are tested in places where mind and hand come together—the laboratory and studio. Artists, like scientists, study—materials, people, culture, history, religion, mythology— and learn to transform information into something else.
PDF Science and Art Comparison and Contrast
Science' s priority i s f inding the truth and Art' s p riority i s creating beauty. Obviously, these are two different goals from the f i rst sight but this issue has a lot of " undersea stones". 1. Introduction 2. The connection of Science and Art 3. Truth and beauty in their merging of Ar t and Science 4. The influence of benefits on ...
Exploring the Dichotomy: Arts vs. Science Essay Guide
In a world brimming with diverse disciplines, none sparks a more spirited debate than the comparison between arts and science. The realms of artistic expression and scientific inquiry stand as two distinct pillars of human knowledge and creativity. This essay embarks on a journey to dissect the complexities of this age-old dichotomy, unraveling ...
Essays on Art and Science
The essays on art and science in this book vary widely in subject matter, including the angst-ridden portraits of Soutine, conflicting views of women's sexuality, Cubism's challenge to our innate visual processes, and why we react differently to abstract versus figurative art. But each essay focuses on the interaction of art and science.
Essays on Art and Science
Eric R. Kandel's 'Essays on Art and Science' is a fascinating, thought-provoking read that beautifully articulates the complex interplay between our brain's inner workings and our emotional responses to art. It's a testament to Kandel's expertise and ability to make science approachable and relevant to our everyday experiences with art.
PDF Science and Art Essay
Art in comparison to science does not describe, explain and predict processes and phenomenon of reality, using the existing laws. Art simply reflects the phenomenon of reality. Art uses the tool of reflection to imitate beauty it observes. Art is subjective and science is completely objective. Conclusion.
18 Theses on Art and Science
Thesis 1: Principles of empirical-rational thought can be applied in all disciplines that deal with aspects of reality, e.g. also in the humanities. However, not all scientific disciplines follow these principles. Furthermore, only some of these disciplines — not all — operate in a laboratory.
Open for Discussion: What's the Difference Between Art and Science?
Science is designed to be objective and guided by data; art is subjective and deeply influenced by feelings and opinions. While the outcomes of science and art are quite different, the processes involved have undeniable similarities. To innovate and inspire, scientists and artists alike have to create something original that no one else has ...
Art Vs Science: An In-Depth Comparison
Choosing where to study computer science is an important decision that can impact your learning experience, career prospects, and network. If you're short on time, here's the quick take: With highly-ranked programs, distinguished faculty, state-of-the-art facilities, and renowned tech graduates, Purdue University provides an excellent environment for computer science students.
Anthropology Between Art and Science: An Essay on the Meaning of
It draws in part on a shorter essay, "L'art, la science et le sense de la recherche" (Art, science and the meaning of research), published in the journal A/R (1: 89-93, 143-4, 2018). I am indebted to the European Research Council for the funding that supported both the preparation of the lecture and the writing of this text, as part of ...
Science vs arts
Essay, Pages 3 (525 words) Views. 2103. I consider that Science and Arts are strongly bonded as, though they are two totally opposite areas of knowing, they manage to create a balance that holds tightly the emotions and the reasoning of human mankind. Art is the expression of human creativity, of human skill and imagination.
Science, Mind and Art: Essays on science and the humanistic ...
Science, Mind and Art, Volume III of Essays in honor of Robert S. Cohen focuses on issues in contemporary epistemology, aesthetics, and philosophy of mind as well as on the relations of science and human values in ethical and religious thought. It also has important new work in contemporary metaphysics, as well as in the history of philosophy ...
Essays on Art and Science
The essays on art and science in this book vary widely in subject matter, including the angst-ridden portraits of Soutine, conflicting views of women's sexuality, Cubism's challenge to our innate visual processes, and why we react differently to abstract versus figurative art. But each essay focuses on the interaction of art and science.
Full article: Controversies and Transfigurations: Views on Russian
Papers on Scythianism's messianic identity, Moisei Ginzburg's typological thinking, and El Lissitzky's art-time-geometry outline these themes. The Scythian discourse, discussed by Ekaterina Bobrinskaya in the opening essay of the present selection, reveals one of the major trends shaping the entirety of twentieth-century Russian culture ...
Marx and Engels On Literature and Art Preface.
Marx and Engels revealed the social nature of art and its development in the course of history and showed that in a society with class antagonisms it was influenced by class 'contradictions and by the politics and ideologies of particular classes. Marx and Engels gave a materialist explanation of the origin of the aesthetic sense itself.
The joy of science
A new paradigm-shifting science curriculum engages students with personalized learning and travel to virtual worlds. Alum Sean Swentek, and his family, Aira, Lourdes and Sia. ... Despite all the mind-blowing things artificial intelligence already can do — from writing essays and creating visual art to assisting doctors with diagnosing disease ...
Review of: Olga Zhukova, An essay on Russian culture: philosophy of
This book review discusses the new research of the Russian philosopher and cultural study scholar Olga A. Zhukova. What is special about the Russian intellectual movement Russian Europeanism? Zhukova reconstructs the ideas of Russian Europeanism, and she evaluates the approaches of Russian thinkers to national cultural history. The author manages to introduce the reader to current discussions ...
The Huntington
The author photo and cover of Thomas Young's Afro-American Freeman's Light: A Book of Original Poems and Songs, 1896. | The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens. Raqib Shaw, Ode to the Country without a Post Office , 2019-20.
Contemporary art and modern science collide in Moscow
View the video by RBTH: Science and art in unison at the Frontier exhibition in Moscow The program is designed so that interesting events will be held each day. The most informative day will be ...
The Dark Side of Politics: Essays on the Unpleasant Realities of
This series of scholarly chapters explores the unpleasant realities of modern politics - and American politics in particular - by examining how self- interest, war, violence, deception and institutional failure continue to characterize the political landscape. Author Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the political world in which we like to think we live - the world...
Politics latest: New poll makes grim reading for Farage
Sir Keir Starmer stressed the need to "maintain high alert" for more disorder as he chaired another emergency COBRA meeting. Meanwhile, new polling suggests support for Nigel Farage has plummeted ...
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Art and science have coexisted, often indistinguishable from each other, across time and space. A wealth of early documented examples comes from the Islamic culture, where art and science joined in intricate star‐shaped architectural geometries, and the use of "Nur" (light) and material science to design utensils and lettering in manuscripts 2.
As science and art develop, as their view of the world becomes more highly elaborated, they make these judgments differently (Essays of an Information (a), 5). Summary In sum, art and science represent and belong to one culture based on creativity, historical development of society, research and scientific methods of discoveries.
The Art-Science Connection Number 8 February, 20, 1989 Ilk two-part essay examines relationships between the worlds of art and science. Part 1 considers various theoretical and historical connections between the two spheres, Photography and other tech-nological developments and their contributions to art are also discussed, as are medical and ...
To many, science embodies the rational and analytical end of human experience, while art comes from the empathic and expressive. Science can prove truths to us, while art can only make us feel them. These differences are compounded as science becomes responsible for the official narrative of our lives, through medicine and genetics, while ...
Science and Art. by Leonid I. Ponomarev. T he limitations of science are the most evident in attempts to use scientific methods to unveil the secrets of art. Science 'knows everything' about the grand piano: the number, quality and length of its strings; the species of wood used; the composition of the glue, and the finest details of its design.
Science and art naturally overlap. Both are a means of investigation. Both involve ideas, theories, and hypotheses that are tested in places where mind and hand come together—the laboratory and studio. Artists, like scientists, study—materials, people, culture, history, religion, mythology— and learn to transform information into something else.
Science' s priority i s f inding the truth and Art' s p riority i s creating beauty. Obviously, these are two different goals from the f i rst sight but this issue has a lot of " undersea stones". 1. Introduction 2. The connection of Science and Art 3. Truth and beauty in their merging of Ar t and Science 4. The influence of benefits on ...
In a world brimming with diverse disciplines, none sparks a more spirited debate than the comparison between arts and science. The realms of artistic expression and scientific inquiry stand as two distinct pillars of human knowledge and creativity. This essay embarks on a journey to dissect the complexities of this age-old dichotomy, unraveling ...
The essays on art and science in this book vary widely in subject matter, including the angst-ridden portraits of Soutine, conflicting views of women's sexuality, Cubism's challenge to our innate visual processes, and why we react differently to abstract versus figurative art. But each essay focuses on the interaction of art and science.
Eric R. Kandel's 'Essays on Art and Science' is a fascinating, thought-provoking read that beautifully articulates the complex interplay between our brain's inner workings and our emotional responses to art. It's a testament to Kandel's expertise and ability to make science approachable and relevant to our everyday experiences with art.
Art in comparison to science does not describe, explain and predict processes and phenomenon of reality, using the existing laws. Art simply reflects the phenomenon of reality. Art uses the tool of reflection to imitate beauty it observes. Art is subjective and science is completely objective. Conclusion.
Thesis 1: Principles of empirical-rational thought can be applied in all disciplines that deal with aspects of reality, e.g. also in the humanities. However, not all scientific disciplines follow these principles. Furthermore, only some of these disciplines — not all — operate in a laboratory.
Science is designed to be objective and guided by data; art is subjective and deeply influenced by feelings and opinions. While the outcomes of science and art are quite different, the processes involved have undeniable similarities. To innovate and inspire, scientists and artists alike have to create something original that no one else has ...
Choosing where to study computer science is an important decision that can impact your learning experience, career prospects, and network. If you're short on time, here's the quick take: With highly-ranked programs, distinguished faculty, state-of-the-art facilities, and renowned tech graduates, Purdue University provides an excellent environment for computer science students.
It draws in part on a shorter essay, "L'art, la science et le sense de la recherche" (Art, science and the meaning of research), published in the journal A/R (1: 89-93, 143-4, 2018). I am indebted to the European Research Council for the funding that supported both the preparation of the lecture and the writing of this text, as part of ...
Essay, Pages 3 (525 words) Views. 2103. I consider that Science and Arts are strongly bonded as, though they are two totally opposite areas of knowing, they manage to create a balance that holds tightly the emotions and the reasoning of human mankind. Art is the expression of human creativity, of human skill and imagination.
Science, Mind and Art, Volume III of Essays in honor of Robert S. Cohen focuses on issues in contemporary epistemology, aesthetics, and philosophy of mind as well as on the relations of science and human values in ethical and religious thought. It also has important new work in contemporary metaphysics, as well as in the history of philosophy ...
The essays on art and science in this book vary widely in subject matter, including the angst-ridden portraits of Soutine, conflicting views of women's sexuality, Cubism's challenge to our innate visual processes, and why we react differently to abstract versus figurative art. But each essay focuses on the interaction of art and science.
Papers on Scythianism's messianic identity, Moisei Ginzburg's typological thinking, and El Lissitzky's art-time-geometry outline these themes. The Scythian discourse, discussed by Ekaterina Bobrinskaya in the opening essay of the present selection, reveals one of the major trends shaping the entirety of twentieth-century Russian culture ...
Marx and Engels revealed the social nature of art and its development in the course of history and showed that in a society with class antagonisms it was influenced by class 'contradictions and by the politics and ideologies of particular classes. Marx and Engels gave a materialist explanation of the origin of the aesthetic sense itself.
A new paradigm-shifting science curriculum engages students with personalized learning and travel to virtual worlds. Alum Sean Swentek, and his family, Aira, Lourdes and Sia. ... Despite all the mind-blowing things artificial intelligence already can do — from writing essays and creating visual art to assisting doctors with diagnosing disease ...
This book review discusses the new research of the Russian philosopher and cultural study scholar Olga A. Zhukova. What is special about the Russian intellectual movement Russian Europeanism? Zhukova reconstructs the ideas of Russian Europeanism, and she evaluates the approaches of Russian thinkers to national cultural history. The author manages to introduce the reader to current discussions ...
The author photo and cover of Thomas Young's Afro-American Freeman's Light: A Book of Original Poems and Songs, 1896. | The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens. Raqib Shaw, Ode to the Country without a Post Office , 2019-20.
View the video by RBTH: Science and art in unison at the Frontier exhibition in Moscow The program is designed so that interesting events will be held each day. The most informative day will be ...
This series of scholarly chapters explores the unpleasant realities of modern politics - and American politics in particular - by examining how self- interest, war, violence, deception and institutional failure continue to characterize the political landscape. Author Benjamin Ginsberg argues that the political world in which we like to think we live - the world...
Sir Keir Starmer stressed the need to "maintain high alert" for more disorder as he chaired another emergency COBRA meeting. Meanwhile, new polling suggests support for Nigel Farage has plummeted ...