Re: Art and Science

From: Tom Richards (
Date: Tue Mar 23 1999 - 00:48:20 EET

Klas Boivie and Michael Reese:

I couldn't agree more. For example, Metallurgical Engineering is the ART and
SCIENCE of winning metals from their ores, and adapting them for use.

At 12:39 PM 3/22/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Klas Boivie wrote:
>> I've always argued that science and art are like the North and South poles
>> of a magnet, or right and left side of anyting you prefer, -you can't have
>> one without the other.
>> There is always a component of art in good science, and an artist must
>> apply some sceince to express his/her art.
>> To deny that is like refusing to eat the "left end of a hot dog" :-)
>> /Klas
>> At 13:29 1999-03-21 -0600, you wrote:
>> >Hey list,
>> >
>> >Do you think of art as an indulgence? Is it a whimsy? Is it something
>> >that is several notches below your real concerns as an engineer? As a
>> >scientist? Is it great for them, but of no consequence to your life?
>> >
>> >Well, why not check out this article about Bell Labs.
>> >
>> >quote:
>> >
>> >"The artist who blithely goes through an entire career ignorant of the
>> >technological tools of his or her trade strikes us as a sad anachronism,
>> >and the technician who doesn't spend at least some
>> >down time fooling around with graphics, animation or music seems to us
>> >terribly one sided. "
>> >
>> >So, how many of you are fooling around with the CAD, making models? How
>> >many more would love to do so?
>> >
>> >Thought provoker, rp-art evangelist,
>> >--
>> >michael rees SCULPTOR
>> >1212 w 8th St. Bldg B #2, 816 753 3020 voice
>> >KC, Mo 64101 816 753 1542 fax
>> >
>> >The use of rapid prototyping in art will contribute immensely to the
>> >popularization of rp.
>> >
>> >For more information about the rp-ml, see
>> >
>> >
>Hey Klas,
>I forgot to put the url for the article out. it is
>thanks for your comment. I couldn't agree with your position more!! This
>reminds me of my favorite quote from the metallurgist Cyril Stanley
>SMith. It goes like this:
>"It is misleading to divide human actions into "art", "science," or
>"technology," for the artist has something of the scientist in him, and
>the engineer of both, and the very meaning of these terms varies with
>time so that analysis can easily degenerate into semantics.
>Nevertheless, one man may be mainly motivated by a desire to promote
>utility, while others may seek intellectual understanding or aesthetic
>experience. The study of interplay among these is not only interesting
>but is necessary for suggesting routes out of our present social
>confusion. " --Cyril Stanley Smith
>This makes me wonder a bit. I think there's a split between how we
>perceive art and science in this culture. If science tells us something
>that we find counter-intuitive, unappealing maybe, we are forced to
>entertain it seriously. Science has this kind of authority even though
>science is always amending itself, admitting wrongs, redirecting,
>recreating, reforming itself. We have patience for this.
>On the other hand, as art explores and researches various modes of
>representation, and shows us something counter intuitive, perhaps also
>unappealing, it is often rejected out of hand-- "OH those crazy
>artists." Interesting isn't it? The method can be quite similar and have
>the same level of rigor but the response is completely opposite.
>Perhaps this is because art is seen to occupy a psychological space. It
>is mucky murky and ambiguous in there. A little frightening. But once
>again, is this really that much different than science?
>Onward and upward,
>michael rees SCULPTOR
>1212 w 8th St. Bldg B #2, 816 753 3020 voice
>KC, Mo 64101 816 753 1542 fax
>For more information about the rp-ml, see

For more information about the rp-ml, see

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:51:18 EEST