Geoffrey Lapage

Contents:
Introduction - The Kinds of Scientific Illustrations - Who did the Printed Illustrations that we see? - Some Earlier Scientific Illustrations - Drawings done by Scientists -The Characteristics of Scientific Illustrations: 1.- Scientific Qualities, 2.– Artistic Qualities - Creative Process in Science and Art – Bibliography - Index

The authors aim is to discuss the scientific and artistic qualities of drawings by scientists and the questions that are raised by these: are there essential differences between the practice of science and art? If yes, what are the differences? Limits to the study are those imposed by costs but also self-imposed to keep the book within reasonable length: he confines the material he uses to scientific works by scientists who are no longer living, work by artists is restricted to that of engravers or lithographers before photographic reproductions were used; some historic features are discussed but it is not intended to be a history of scientific illustrations.
The author distinguishes three kinds of scientific illustrations: descriptive, interpretative (illustrating a certain feature or function of the object), and imaginative illustrations (illustrating ideas). He goes on to discuss at length the varying contributions of scientist, artist and publisher and describes in detail many works.
The last chapter, comparing the creative processes in art and science, was for me of greatest interest. An extensive literature survey reveals, according to the author, two broadly opposing views represented by Samuel Alexander and Susanne Langer; the former sees similarities in the way (great) artists and scientist work: – after the inspiration patient experiments (sketches, revisions, …) – the latter emphasizing the generality of rational discourse in science opposed to the specificity of subjective experience in art. In my view (and the authors?) these ideas may not be completely opposed but rather distinguished by the stress being placed on particular characteristics.
50 years have passed since publication. Have art and science practices and ideas about their relationships changed significantly?
To start with: As fascinating as the philosophical problem concerning these two forms of human enquiry is, the author overestimates the importance of science to contemporary art practice and his prediction: - that ‘[art] must grasp, and integrate […] the rich material which science offers’ and ‘accept the challenge or die’ – has not come true. Although our daily life is shaped by science-based technology, this technology is taken for granted, the science behind them is not important to be known. Problems of the human condition, above all of power structures, have been much more urgent for art to address.
Secondly, the practice of science research, and to some extend also art practice, has changed: The great scientist making break-through discoveries has largely given way to team work although mostly still under the dominance of a leading researcher. This may be compared to a few highly publicised artists employing technicians to translate ideas into objects; sometimes there is genuine cooperation between two artists. So there is a certain, limited, parallel development.
Most important though, – and a point the author does not discuss – both, art and science practices are imbedded in society. G.L.’s writing is still informed by the ideal of a neutral science that is independent of the social environment whereas in reality science today is more than ever submitted to economic and - not to forget - military priorities. Artists need to live of course, and many compromise their work for financial gains but many and the best provide an alternative consciousness to the established powers. This can generally not be said of scientists.
But this critique does not diminish the author’s achievement within the limits he has set himself. Based on a thorough literature survey it is a carefully done study with great attention to detail. The extensive bibliography is invaluable in pursuing the subject further. (VI-10)… (más)