Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 104, Issue 4, pp 597–608 | Cite as

Observation and visualization: reflections on the relationship between science, visual arts, and the evolution of the scientific image

Original Paper

Abstract

The connections between biological sciences, art and printed images are of great interest to the author. She reflects on the historical relevance of visual representations for science. She argues that the connection between art and science seems to have diminished during the twentieth century. However, this connection is currently growing stronger again through digital media and new imaging methods. Scientific illustrations have fuelled art, while visual modeling tools have assisted scientific research. As a print media artist, she explores the relationship between art and science in her studio practice and will present this historical connection with examples related to evolution, microbiology and her own work. Art and science share a common source, which leads to scrutiny and enquiry. Science sets out to reveal and explain our reality, whereas art comments and makes connections that don’t need to be tested by rigorous protocols. Art and science should each be evaluated on their own merit. Allowing room for both in the quest to understand our world will lead to an enriched experience.

Keywords

Art and science Digital imaging Printmaking Scientific illustration Symbiogenesis 

References

  1. Breidbach O (1998) Brief instructions to viewing Haeckel’s pictures. In: Breidbach O, Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (eds) Art forms in nature. The prints of Ernst Haeckel. Prestel, Munich, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  2. Campbell J, Moyers B (1991) In: Flowers BS, Braun M (eds) The power of myth. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cazort M (1997) Photography’s illustrative ancestors: the printed image. In: Thomas A (ed) Beauty of another order. Photography in science. Yale University Press, New Haven in association with National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, pp 14–25Google Scholar
  4. Coopmans C, Vertesi J, Lynch M, Woolgar S (eds) (2014) Representation in scientific practice revisited. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Daston L, Galison P (2007) Objectivity. Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis AA (2013) The xenotext: creating the poetry bug. Macleans http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/11/creating-the-poetry-bug/. Accessed 8 February 2013
  7. Dickerson R (1997) Obituary. Irving Geis, molecular artist, 1908–1997. Protein Sci 6:2483–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahr-Becker G (1997) Art Nouveau. Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft, KölnGoogle Scholar
  9. Flannery MC (1998) Images of the cell in twentieth-century art and science. Leonardo 31(3):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamwell L (2002) Exploring the invisible. Art, science and the spiritual. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert SF, Brauckmann S (2011) Fertilization narratives in the art of Gustav Klimt, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo: repression, domination and eros among cells. Leonardo 44(3):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gontier N (2012) Introducing universal symbiogenesis. In: Pombo O et al (eds) Special sciences and the unity of science, logic, epistemology, and the unity of science, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 89–111 http://www.academia.edu/1364496/Introducing_Universal_Symbiogenesis. Accessed 30 December 2012
  13. Jones J (2012) Science is more beautiful than art. The guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/sep/19/science-more-beautiful-than-art. Accessed 8 November 2012
  14. Kaandorp JA, Kübler JE (2002) The algorithmic beauty of seaweeds, sponges and corals. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Kant I (2008) Critique of judgment. Meredith JC (trans), Walker N (ed) Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Kauffman SA (2008) Reinventing the sacred. A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp M (2000) Visualizations. The nature book of art and science. University of California Press, BerkelyGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemp M (2011) Christ to coke: how images become icon. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolijn E (2008) A virus from outer space/Un virus dans l’espace. RACAR, Revue d’art Canadienne/Canadian Art Review, Vol. XXXIII 1–2:120–123Google Scholar
  20. Kozo-Polyansky BM (2010) Symbiogenesis. A new principle of evolution, 1924. Fet V (trans), Margulis L (ed) Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynch ME, Woolgar S (eds) (1990) Representations in scientific practise. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Margulis L (1998) Symbiotic planet. A new look at evolution. The Perseus group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Margulis L, Schwartz KV (1997) Five kingdoms. An illustrated guide to the phyla of life on earth, 3rd edn. W.H Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles R (2006) Prints now. Directions and definitions. V&A Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Mundy J (2007) Nature made strange. In: Wood G (ed) Surreal things. Surrealism and design. V&A Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavord A (2005) The naming of names. The search for order in the world of plants. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Pilhofer M, Ladinsky MS, McDowell AW, Jensen GJ (2010) Bacterial TEM: new insights from cryo-microscopy. In: Michael conn P (ed) Methods in cell biology, chap. 2, vol. 96. Elsevier Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  28. Reid R (2011) Talking pictures. In: Moser MA, Ingram J (eds) Science she loves me. Banff Centre Press, Banff, pp 70–83Google Scholar
  29. Richards RJ (2008) The tragic sense of life. Ernst Haeckel and the struggle over evolutionary thought. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson JS (2000) Early ribbon drawings of proteins. Nat Struct Biol 7(8):624–625. http://csb.stanford.edu/class/public/readings/Introduction_Lecture1/Richardson_NAT_00_Ribbon_drawing_history.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2013Google Scholar
  31. Root-Bernstein R (2000) Art advances science. Nature 407:134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Root-Bernstein R (2011) ArtScience: integrative collaboration to create a sustainable future. Leonardo 44(3):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothenberg D (2011) The survival of the beautiful art, science, and evolution. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Steigerwald J (2002) Goethe’s morphology: Urphänomene and aesthetic appraisal. J Hist Biol 35:291–328. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  35. Switek B (2010) Breaking our link to the “March of progress”. Scientific American, December 3 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2010/12/03/breaking-our-link-to-the-March-of-progress/. Accessed 13 February 2013
  36. Teresi D (2011) Lynn Margulis. Discover, April:66–71Google Scholar
  37. Vernadsky VI (1998) In: McMenamin M (ed) The biosphere. Complete annotated edition (1928). Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walsh DM (2006) Organisms as natural purposes: the contemporary evolutionary perspective. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 37:771–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilde A, Wilde J (eds) (1977) Karl Blossfeldt. The alphabet of plants (with an essay by Gert Mattenklott). Te Neues Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations