Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com Article: Lab Coat Chic:

[G. Stewart]

Hello Selma, Your posting this morning about science and art led me to look back to some comments made on the issue by a younger me. In an approach different both from yours and from Dr. Wightman's, I had tried to define the relationship between science and art by rooting them in a common point of origin. Here is what I found, in an address to a humanities association in 1986: "Old enough to remember the earlier relations between the humanities and the social sciences, between these different modes of approaching the human condition -- these territories of the mind that have also become territories within universities and within government funding agencies -- I am also young enough to hope to live to see that former respect for the humanities fully regenerated within the social sciences. This regeneration of respect may come perhaps in a new understanding of the relationship between the humanities and science, hinted at in my title. [The title was "Hunting the Wild Hypothemyth."] "This relationship arises where myth and hypothesis intersect and converge in fresh question about both science and art -- the art, in science, of casting the resonant question, the hypothesis that is powerful myth, and the science, in art, of casting the creative question, the myth that is powerful hypothesis. It is to this point of origin, this genesis for both the humanities and the social sciences, that I would like to address attention." It is surprising sometimes to look back and see where one's mind has been! I don't know how I would depict the relationship today. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: [Futurework] NYTimes.com Article: Lab Coat Chic: > This article from NYTimes.com > has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]. > > > I got a kick out of seeing this article in The NYTimes this morning in the light of the recent discussion of art and computers. > > I read "Einstein's Dreams" a number of years ago; it's a lot of fun to read. > > I was particularly interested in the comments of Dr. Lightman, astrophysicist turned writer: > > "He said he had been thinking, he explained, about the tension between science and art, the rational and the intuitive.Einstein's dreams, he realized, were the bridge. > > Dr. Lightman said he did not buy into Snow's 'two cultures' separated by a gulf, which he characterized as a 'negative perception.' Rather, he said, science and art are complementary to each other, 'two different ways of being in the world.' Science is about questions that have answers. Art is about questions that do notl It is the lack of answers and the sense of being haunted by them that gives art its power, Dr. Lightman said." > > I would disagree with that characterization of art. For me, art gives answers to deeper questions; science is helpful as a tool that helps clarify what some of the questions might be; it also provides important information about the world that I need in order to clarify the issues that I need to pay attention to. > > But I certainly agree that the two are related and I would argue, essential to each other. That connects to my belief that all elements in our lives are connected; are all part of a whole. As I've said before, the rational, emotional, spiritual, physical, etc. are all elements of a greater whole. > > Selma > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Lab Coat Chic: The Arts Embrace Science > > January 28, 2003 > By DENNIS OVERBYE > > Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]