Leonardo

From Art and Science to Perception: The Role of AestheticsAuthor(s): Gideon EnglerSource: Leonardo, Vol. 27, No. 3, Art and Science Similarities, Differences and Interactions:Special Issue (1994), pp. 207-209Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576053 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 15:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CREATIVE PROCESSES

From Art and Science to Perception: The Role of Aesthetics

Gideon Engler

here is a common tendency to compare art and science. The origin of this tendency can be attributed to the perception that both disciplines are associated with pro- found human experience and perception of the world. This

profundity is apparent in art through specific creations-that is, artworks-that are related to inner human nature. In sci- ence, it is apparent in the systematic endeavour to create

knowledge of the world. However, it is not clear a priori that such a comparison of

art and science is at all meaningful. Indeed, art and science

present quite different features. Thus, whereas art deals with

diversity, uniqueness and individuality, science deals with

regularity and generality and is subject to critical methodol-

ogy. Art and science seem therefore to exist in worlds apart. A closer examination of these disciplines does, however, sup- port the usefulness of comparing them: the similarities are manifested by basic perceptive and creative acts of the mind and become apparent through aesthetic appreciation.

AESTHETICS IN ART

With respect to art the above assertion is certainly not surpris- ing-indeed, extensive studies in the aesthetics of art have been performed [1]. Naturally, there is no consensus as to the essence of the aesthetics but there is a widespread agree- ment that it is comprised of aspects that can be classified into two types: extrinsic and internal [2]. Representation, expres- siveness, the cognitive and the intellectual, for example, can be classified as extrinsic aspects. The second type encom-

passes "formal" aspects, since internal organizations are cre- ated by the relations of formal elements such as line, shape, colour, repetition, symmetry, balance and rhythm.

It is clear that the comparison of art and science cannot be based on extrinsic aspects, since in this area the differences between the two disciplines are so substantial that no com- mon ground can be expected. The only prospect for com-

parison lies with the formal aspects, since science-and art-

possesses such aspects. This is particularly apparent in the mathematical representation of science. Mathematics is in- deed a formal science since it is concerned with creating structures through formal relations among either conceptual or experiential data.

The question then arises as to whether the formal aspects in the two disciplines have a common denominator. As will be discussed below, not only do they share a common denomina- tor, but this denominator is essential to the structures of these

disciplines. This common denominator is aesthetics.

FORMALISM IN ART In art, the link between structures and aesthetics can be readily ob- served in the short list of formal elements presented above. In- deed, these elements are indica- tive of both their centrality in structures and the aesthetic ap- peal of such structures. Moreover, it is the contention of some aestheticians that aesthetic ap- peal in art relies solely on the ap- preciation of such elements. A

ABSTRACT

At a first glance, art and science seem to occupy separate worlds. However, a closer exami- nation of these disciplines reveals a meaningful similarity between them. This is manifested by basic perceptive and creative acts of the mind and is apparent through a unique experience: the aesthetic appreciation of structures in these disciplines. A notable outcome of this feature is its compatibility with the Gestalt approach to the func- tioning of the mind.

well-known proponent of this approach was the art critic Clive Bell [3]. Indeed, he had a total disregard for represen- tational subject matter. Thus, to appreciate a work of art, ac- cording to Bell, is to "bring with us nothing but a sense of form and colour and a knowledge of three-dimensional space" [4]. As Marcia M. Eaton comments, "What is impor- tant for aesthetics is what can directly be seen or heard; it is not an issue of forming judgements on the basis of extrinsic information, it is how, not what that matters" [5].

Even if not accepted to this extreme degree, the centrality of Bell's argument of the how in art cannot be denied. It is perhaps best comprehended with respect to abstract visual art and music. Indeed, of all arts, music is the one in which the formal aspect is most important, since a musical work is com- prised of formal features such as tonality, rhythm, intervals and orchestration, which are organized into temporal rela- tionships. Audible wholes or sound-structures are thus formed. Comprehension of these structures is largely respon- sible for the appreciation of works of music. In what is termed classical music, for example, these structures usually express order, coherence and unity of formal features, and these, in

general, evoke aesthetic appreciation. However, this conclusion pertains to all art. Indeed, order,

coherence and unity have the effect of integrating formal fea- tures into structures that give the impression of constituting unified wholes (or organic unities), which have great aesthetic

appeal. Thus, for example, aesthetician Monroe Beardsley defined order as "that what distinguishes beautiful things

Gideon Engler (research physicist), Soreq Research Center, 70600 Yavne, Israel.

Manuscript solicited by Giorgio Careri.

Received 8 September 1993.

This is a shortened and modified version of a paper given at the World Academy of Art and Science Workshop on Art and Science, Vinci, Italy, December 1992.

LEONARDO, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 207-209, 1994 207 ? 1994 ISAST

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

from other things" [6]. Moreover, the more orderly and rightly organized an

object appears, the more aesthetically appreciated it becomes. The culmina- tion of a state of order is reached when total coherence exists between elements of a work of art. When a structure be- comes ordered-when each element ap- pears to be in its right and unique place in such a way that it should not be re- moved, changed or replaced [7]-the sense of the work as a unified whole-and its aesthetic appeal-is experienced.

AESTHETICS IN SCIENCE

As unexpected as it may seem, the above assertion about ordered structures ap- plies not only to art but to science as well. This awareness may not be gener- ally appreciated because science is usu-

ally considered to be subject only to

logico-empirical, or truth-related, judg- ments. However, such an attitude disre-

gards numerous claims by scientists on the importance of aesthetic factors in the development of their theories [8,9].

Examples are found in the approaches of two well-known physicists who explic- itly applied what they considered as aes- thetic criteria to their work. One of the

physicists, P.A.M. Dirac, was utterly de- voted to the aesthetic view; and the other, Roger Penrose, presents a more common attitude. Dirac wrote, "It is more important to have beauty in one's

equations than have them fit [an] ex-

periment" [10]. Penrose wrote, "Rigor- ous argument is usually the last step! Be- fore that, one has to make many guesses, and for these, aesthetic convictions are

enormously important-always con- strained by logical argument and known facts" [11].

In order to find out whether these ex-

pressions are of general validity for sci- ence, a critical analysis of aesthetic as-

pects in science must first be attempted. Such an endeavour was undertaken in a recent demonstration emphasizing the

importance of classical aesthetic con-

cepts such as symmetry, simplicity, order, coherence and unity in relation to the creation and structure of science [12].

It is clear that not all of these con-

cepts are of the same kind. Indeed, whereas symmetry may be regarded, to a

great extent, as a tool for creating theo- ries, simplicity can be viewed as a funda- mental structural concept in science, with order, coherence and unity as orga- nizing and integrating concepts. These

concepts, along with simplicity, are fac- tors in the integration of scientific ideas

and concepts into comprehensive and

perceptible structures, or integrated wholes, of aesthetic appeal.

It should nevertheless be mentioned that, in spite of their significance, aes- thetic concepts are not sufficient condi- tions for the acceptance of scientific theories. They must be corroborated by criteria of a factual nature, such as con-

sistency with other theories, accuracy or

predictive power. Only if this factual re-

quirement is satisfied can the theory fulfill its purpose: the description of na- ture [13].

In general, it is found that these crite- ria-aesthetic and factual-are in accor- dance with each other. Aesthetics is well

grounded in science, and even such phe- nomena as parity violation and spontaneous symmetry breaking, which are encountered in the domain of the microworld, do not

seriously affect the aesthetic approach. It turns out that parity violation is related

only to weak forces in nature and that a combination of CPT (sign change in electric Charge, Parity violation and Time reversal) maintains symmetry [14]. Symmetry breaking refers to asymmetric solutions of equations that themselves are based on exact symmetries [15,16]. Indeed, the more deeply nature is

probed, the more symmetric the underly- ing laws become [17].

If there does exist a threat to aesthet- ics, it must, therefore, come from an- other direction. Such seems to be the case with the new approaches to irre- versible or far-from-equilibrium systems (such as thermodynamic or biological systems) [18]. The reason is that these

systems appear to lie at an opposite pole from aesthetics. Thus, they reflect com-

plexity and chaos rather than classical notions of symmetry, simplicity or com-

pleteness, with which this paper is con- cerned. While such a threat might have

emerged from these approaches, so far, this has not occurred [19]. Moreover, it is even possible to reconcile the exis- tence of these two domains, the com-

plex and the classical [20]. Thus, the do- main of complexity leaves the validity of the aesthetic attitude essentially intact.

SIMILARITY BETWEEN ART

AND SCIENCE

It can, therefore, be asserted that the existence of an aesthetic dimension in science is meaningfully affirmed. More- over, as already noted, in science, as in art, the structures are perceived as inte-

grated wholes, that is, structures of aes- thetic appeal.

Perception of structures of aesthetic

appeal is thus the key for revealing the

similarity of the aesthetic dimensions of art and science. In addition to percep- tion, there are intellectual aspects of art and science. Of course, the weight of these aspects is different in the two disci-

plines. Thus, whereas in art the percep- tive content is usually considered as dominant, in science the dominance would naturally be attributed to the in- tellectual part. Nevertheless, from the

previous analysis it is clear that the aes- thetic factor and, therefore, the percep- tive part, is of considerable significance in science.

REMARKS ON THE MIND IN ART AND SCIENCE This conclusion purports the view, stated at the outset of this paper, that aesthetic appeal and appreciation in art and science possess a certain generic ori-

gin expressed by a corresponding affin-

ity with regard to perceptive and cre- ative activities of the human mind. In both cases the mind strives towards cer- tain organizations of patterns that evoke

predominantly aesthetic appreciation. Here indeed, lies the significance of the similarities between art and science-

namely, the similarities add a universal dimension to interpretations of pattern organization usually made about activi- ties of the mind with respect to art.

An example of such an attitude is found in the Gestalt principles of percep- tion, which have been widely discussed with respect to visual art [21] and music [22] but not to science. Gestalt has to do with good forms, or well-organized struc- tures, and states that the mind prefers groupings of stimuli in configurations on the basis of various simple principles. One such principle, for example, is that of similarity. This principle may be inter-

preted as a special case of a more gen- eral law, "according to which the forces which constitute a psychological or

physiological field tend toward the sim-

plest, most regular, most symmetrical distribution available under given condi- tions" [23]. This principle is thus consis- tent with aesthetic appreciation.

The aesthetic factor is indeed a sig- nificant characteristic of the Gestalt ap- proach. However, the well-organized structures of Gestalt are in conflict with approaches that emphasize aggregation of parts or particular relations [24]. In this context, the aesthetic aspect in sci- ence may provide a meaningful support to the idea of Gestalt.

208 Engler, From Art and Science to Perception

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

References

1. G. Dickie, Aesthetics: An Introduction (Indianapo- lis, IN: Bobbs-Merril, 1979).

2. A. Sheppard, Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Phi-

losophy of Art (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).

3. C. Bell, Art (New York: Perigree Books, 1981).

4. Bell [3] p. 28.

5. M.M. Eaton, Aesthetics and the Good Life (Rutherford: Associated Univ. Press, 1989) p. 132.

6. M.C. Beardsley, "Order and Disorder in Art," in The Concept of Order, P. Kuntz, ed. (Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington Press, 1968) p. 192.

7. R. Lorand, "Beauty-Order without Laws," The Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 (1992) pp. 43-63.

8. G. Engler, "Aesthetics in Science and in Art," The British Journal of Aesthetics 30 (1990) pp. 24-31.

9. J.W. McAllister, "Truth and Beauty in Scientific Reason," Synthese 78 (1989) pp. 25-51.

10. P.A.M. Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," Scientific American 208, No. 5 (1963) p. 47.

11. R. Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989) p. 421.

12. Engler [8] pp. 28-31.

13. Engler [8] p. 31.

14. T.D. Lee, Symmetries, Asymmetries and the World of Particles (Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington Press, 1988) pp. 11-21.

15. S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992) pp. 192-195.

16. C.D. Coughlan andJ.E. Dodd, The Ideas of Particle

Physics: An Introduction for Scientists, 2nd Ed. (Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991) pp. 95-97.

17. Lee [14] p. 11.

18. G. Nicolis, "Physics in Far-from-Equilibrium Sys-

tems and Self-Organization," in The New Physics, P.C.W. Davies, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992) pp. 316-347.

19. J.D. Barrow, Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) pp. 159-165.

20. Barrow [19] p. 162.

21. R. Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception: A Psychol- ogy of the Creative Eye, Rev. Ed. (Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press, 1968) pp. 196-208.

22. D. Deutsch, "Grouping Mechanisms in Music," in The Psychology of Music, D. Deutsch, ed. (San Diego, CA: San Diego Academic Press, 1982) pp. 100-101.

23. R. Arnheim, "Gestalt Psychology and Artistic Form," in Aspects of Form, L.L. White, ed. (New York: Elsevier, 1968) pp. 196-208.

24. R. Arnheim, "The State of the Art in Percep- tion," Leonardo 20, No. 4 (1992) p. 306.

Engler, From Art and Science to Perception 209

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions