Leonardo

Art, Science and Human BeingAuthor(s): L. AlcopleySource: Leonardo, Vol. 27, No. 3, Art and Science Similarities, Differences and Interactions:Special Issue (1994), pp. 183-184Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576049 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 18:33

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 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:33:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CREATIVE PROCESSES

Art, Science and Human Being

L. Alcopley

he notion that art and science are contradic-

tory originated with Nietzsche, who considered art as the

highest form of human activity. For Nietzsche, art was not re- stricted to a particular sphere of human life but was the in- nermost nature of the world itself: "The world as a work of art that gives birth to itself" [1]. He understood art as a transfigu- ration and an affirmation of human existence. In recent years the assumption has been made that art and science or, in gen- eral, the humanities and science, represent two different "cul- tures" opposing each other. I do not share such a view, as it

appears to me that its proponents do not grasp the similarity or identity of the creative side of two of the most noble activi- ties of our species. This was not as evident at the time of Nietzsche as it is now.

It is obvious that art and science are very different activi- ties, which does not mean that they must mirror different cul- tures. The protagonists of this latter view ignore the vast di- versities which are manifest in different scientific disciplines and varying conceptions, as well as in many differing and even opposing conceptions within any given scientific disci-

pline. As in science, a marked diversity is evident in our time in works of art and artistic conceptions and ideas. Such diver-

sity existed in different eras, and we know from prehistoric and historical times that different cultures are revealed in works of art. However, in our modern age this diversity does not correspond to different cultures but appears to follow the dictum of the artist Kandinsky, who, following Nietzsche, said: "Alles ist erlaubt"-Everything is permitted [2].

The belief exists that art and science must be contradictory, because art stems from the subconscious field of sense per- ceptions while science is considered to be derived from ratio- nal deliberations. However, any work of art is ultimately objectivized in a similar way to the rationalization which the scientist employs in a scientific study. We must, however, dif- ferentiate between scientific creation and science in general, as well as between artistic creation and art in general.

Scientific creation is inspired by the unconscious, as is artis- tic creation. It is obvious that art and science are not identi- cal. They differ in methods, sequelae and personal involve- ments. What unifies them is the spirit which originates in human being and which is communicated to human being.

There are many similarities among the practitioners of art and science. Both artists and scientists can be distinguished as "classical" or "Apollonian" and as "romantic" or "Dionysian." While the former is led by conscious thinking, the Dionysian type is dominated by intuition which springs from the sub- conscious. Creativity which originates in artists and in scien- tists from subconscious sources cannot be taught. It manifests itself in new artistic ideas formed in new visions of the world and in scientific ideas about certain aspects of nature or the universe. The Apollonians among the artists and scientists ful- fill the need for more thorough and systematic ways in their

practices of art and science, re-

spectively. They appear to solidify or stabilize what the Dionysians have brought into the world in both art and science. Yet, what Heraclitus so aptly thought that one cannot step twice into the same river [3,4] is the basis for

any change in the world of hu- man being.

In a recent article [5] I stated that the visualization of the world- view of science in my formed im-

ages [6,7] is possibly the most

original aspect of my artistic en- deavors. I further stated

ABSTRACT

The author discusses his view that while art and science are very different activities, scien- tific creation and artistic creation are both inspired by the uncon- scious and so have much in com- mon. Creativity is manifested in new artistic ideas formed in new visions of the world and in scien- tific ideas about certain aspects of nature or the universe. Consid- ering the works of philosophers, both ancient and contemporary, he comes to the conclusion that the disciplines are unified by the spirit that originates in human be- ing and that is communicated to human being.

Art and science are very different manifestations of human thought. While science is in great part based on analytical and logical thinking, art depends primarily on imaginative and synthetic thinking. I realize that this differentiation is artificial and oversimplified, since both artists and scientists need to depend upon both kinds of thinking to accomplish what they set out to do. Imaginative thinking leads to conceptions which are decisive in science and the unity of art and science mani- fests itself in this kind of thinking. As I have lived simulta- neously the two different careers of a scientist and of an artist, my felt experiences, formed in my pictures, are strongly based on both artistic and scientific thinking.

As I see it, the beholder's inner experiences are appealed to by form created in a work of art. It directly touches the person- ality in a human being and reasserts his own freedom. The be- holder is freed to think metaphorically about his world on the basis of his sensuously felt life experiences and thus is jolted into a creative experience of his own. In my pictures I give form to my felt experiences, which include those from my sci- entific activities and preoccupations as structures and move- ment in space. In this endeavor of giving form in my pictures to the unity of art and science, I am seeking for man's enjoy- ment of the meaning of space [8].

Our species differs from other mammals mainly in our ca-

pability to use our hands in coordination with our minds. These particular tools make our species possible in the con- tinuous process of human doing, manifested in art, science and other specifically human products, such as philosophy, religion, ideology and fundamental thinking.

The contemporary philosopher Joan Stambaugh inter-

prets decadence as a form of nihilism, i.e. the falling away from the mainstream of human life, whereas creativity is an affirmation of life through a transformation of self and

L. Alcopley (a.k.a. Alfred L. Copley, artist and scientist), deceased. Correspondence: Una Dora Copley, P.O. Box 1816, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013, U.S.A.

Received 10June 1991.

Originally published in Life Science (Tokyo) 2, No. 8 (1975); reprinted in One Man, Two Visions: L. Alcopley-A. L. Copley, Artist and Scientist (Oxford: Pergamon, 1993).

LEONARDO, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 183-184, 1994 183 ? L. Alcopley

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:33:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

world [9]. Thus, creativity appears to be a germane element in many activities of human being.

For Socrates, there are three interre- lated regions in human being which are

beyond scientific investigation, viz., the relation of man to himself, his relation to another human being he loves or to another person whom he recognizes as his equal, and his relation to humanity [10]. It was also Socrates who thought that the all-important task of philosophy was to examine who man is and to de-

velop the human being into becoming a

person with ethical or moral properties. According to him, as opposed to the ani- mal and the plant, which do not ques- tion, it is only the human being who asks the question "What shall I do?" [11]. What Socrates called philosophizing and the late contemporary philosopher Heinrich Bluecher referred to as "fun- damental thinking" [12] is the pursuit for the sake of becoming without ever

reaching an end [13]. In the relation of human being to art

and science, philosophy will retake the

position it lost in our technological age. Metaphysical philosophy may then well be replaced by fundamental thinking.

Bluecher identifies the type of think-

ing used for all art production as meta-

phorical, as a tool of the human mind

[14]. He states that metaphor is usually confused with symbol, which never cre- ates form. The symbol stands for some-

thing else and is a useful means of com- munication, particularly in science, and, in its purest form, in mathematics. Ac-

cording to Bluecher, the symbol only stands for something else and has no

meaning in itself while the metaphor stands in itself, i.e. it is a means of par- ticipation. It "springs from conscious and unconscious identification of out- ward reality with inward reality."

It is noteworthy that Heraclitus, one of the founders of science, said: "The lord whose oracle is that at Delphi nei- ther speaks nor conceals, but shows." In

these words he made clear that the es- sence of art lies in the process of self-rev- elation of the human being [15]. Art has thus in common with science the total absence of good and evil. From these two products of human activity, viz., art and science, no moral terms can be ap- plied or ethical conclusions made. It is the responsibility of the beholder of art and the user of science to understand what to make of these creative capabili- ties of human being. This brings us back to philosophizing or fundamental think-

ing in the three realms Socrates taught us to be concerned with and thus com-

plete a circulus vitiosus. The contemporary philosopher Mar-

tin Heidegger, whose fundamental

thinking is concerned with human be-

ing, finds that our scientific technologi- cal civilization has brought about the end of philosophy as metaphysics: "Metaphysics considers existence as a whole-the world, man, God-with re-

spect to Being, with respect to the be-

longing together of beings in Be-

ing"[16]. Heidegger asks: "What task is reserved for thinking at the end of phi- losophy?" He asserts that such a task of

thinking can be neither metaphysics nor science. He thinks of the possibility that "the world civilization which is just now

beginning might one day overcome the

technological scientific-industrial char- acter as the sole criterion of man's world

sojourn." Such preparatory thinking nei- ther wishes nor is able to predict the fu- ture. It attempts to say something to the

present which was said a long time ago at the beginning of philosophy but has not been explicitly thought. This prepa- ratory thinking may well be that of Socrates or that of Bluecher's funda- mental thinking.

Heidegger cites a poem of another founder of science, the pre-Socratic thinker Parmenides. He was

the first to reflect explicitly upon the Being of beings, which still today, al- though unheard, speaks in the sciences

into which philosophy has dissolved. Parmenides listens to the claim:... but you should learn all: the untrembling heart of unconcealment, well-rounded and also the opinions of mortals lack- ing the ability to trust what is uncon- cealed [17].

References

1. Joan Stambaugh, Nietzsche's Thought of Eternal Re- turn (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972).

2. L. Alcopley, "On Art Fashions and the Artist's

Preoccupation with Science," Leonardo 2, No. 2, 161-162 (1969); see also the Letters sections of Leonardo 3, No. 1 (1970) pp. 131-132; and Leonardo 3, No. 2 (1970) p. 491.

3. A.L. Copley, opening address: "On the Validity of Classical Fluid Mechanics in Biorheology," in

Symposium on Biorheology, A.L. Copley, ed. (New York and London: Interscience-John Wiley & Sons, 1965).

4. K. Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1948).

5. L. Alcopley, "On the Unity of Art and Science as Formed in My Pictures," Israel Museum News 9, No. 16 (1972).

6. L. Alcopley, "Drawings as Structures and Non- Structures," Leonardo 1, No. 1, 3-16 (1968).

7. L. Alcopley, "Art and Science: Exhibition, Film

Program and Symposium at the Tel Aviv Museum. With Concluding Remarks of the Symposium by Aharon Katzir-Katchalsky," Leonardo 6, No. 2, 149- 155 (1973).

8. Alcopley [5].

9. Joan Stambaugh, "Nietzsche on Creativity and Decadence," Philosophy Today 21 (1971) pp. 162- 171.

10. Heinrich Bluecher, "A Lecture from the Com- mon Course," Bard 11, No. 6 (1968) (Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York).

11. Bluecher [10].

12. Heinrich Bluecher, Fundamentals of a Philosophy of Art. On the Understanding of Artistic Experience (to be published).

13. Bluecher [10].

14. Bluecher [12].

15. Bluecher [12].

16. Martin Heidegger, On Time and Being, Joan Stambaugh, trans. (New York and London: Harper & Row, 1972).

17. Heidegger [16].

184 Alcopley, Art, Science and Human Being

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:33:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions