Part III: Aesthetics
Previously, my progress included an initial step into considering how the installation might look. I am interested in translating some of my notions of the aesthetics of physics experiments, particularly quantum physics. When I presented, the conversation loosely revolved around aesthetics where it became clear we had little foundation for speaking about the aesthetics of scientific experiments themselves, and it would be a good idea to do some research in this area.
Aesthetics has for some time been in ambiguous relationship with science. The scientific method carries with it the implication that “form follows function”: new ideas are considered valuable when supported by evidence coming from repeatable experiments. Opinions on the validity of evidence focus on the logic and implementation of its associated experiment, not their relative beauty or nonbeauty. Yet notions of beauty are nonetheless a common subject among scientists. Physicist Paul Dirac famously said in describing Schrodinger’s path to publishing, “it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment,” (
Scientific American 1963). Indeed, aesthetics is considered to play a significant role in the development of theories, particularly in physics, and to some extent in their appraisal and validation (Wartofsky 1994, McAllister 2010). Biology sees its share of aesthetic discussion, most popularly with regard to the double helix of DNA. The machinery of molecular biology is often drawn by analogy to industrial design, where presumably “form follows function” to the highest order, despite the mechanisms for survival incrementing as a result of being “good enough,” rather than optimally functional (Parsons 2012). Chemist Steven Benner even describes DNA and other forms of natural selection as a “hack” (Benner 2012).
Putting aside the substance of their opinions, that there is even this kind of discussion is encouraging for the artist, but also presents new challenges. Discourse on aesthetics in science may use similar terminology (elegance, symmetry, harmony), but care must be taken to understand why a theory might be considered elegant. In other words, some formal, including historical, understanding of the subject matter is required by the artist to engage in scientific aesthetics.
A more public aspect of aesthetics in science surrounds the published paper, in particular the data associated with it. This is a huge subject that has seen a surge in artistic focus in the last few decades, in no small part due to the necessity and interest in data visualization. This topic is a bit too far outside the scope of this post and my project, so I will leave it alone for now.
Unfortunately, the impetus for my research on aesthetics for the past week was not fully satisfied. I found almost nothing written about the aesthetics of the scientific instruments themselves. The subject, as far as I could tell, is really a barren desert begging for some wise artistic interpretation of these machines. I did find an op-ed titled “Beautiful Propaganda: the myth of the Large Hadron Collider,” by Crystal Bennes which reacts to the surge of then newly released images of the Large Hadron Collider. Bennes compares the LHC to Hogarth’s criteria laid out in his 1753 Analysis of Beauty. She finds it fits neatly into his guidelines for “fitness for form, variety, symmetry, distinctness, intricacy and magnitude.” Bennes goes on to relate the LHC to the Crossness Pumping Station, a sewage pumping facility from 1865 which took six years to build and was considered a pinnacle of engineering at the time. In it, incredibly intricate ornamentation and thoughtful architectural design subverts from its utilitarian function. This is in contrast to the LHC, which is immediately less utilitarian, and also presumably lacks any ornamentation whatsoever (I couldn’t find information suggesting otherwise). Yet its “cold symmetry and vast scale” demand aesthetic reverence.
Crossness Pumping Station
To uphold the Large Hadron Collider as a reference for aesthetics presents some interesting implications for methodology as it pertains to this course. Assuming the LHC is not designed with aesthetic principles, then it might follow that a sufficiently complex question (e.g. how to prove the Higgs Boson’s existence) is a gateway to beautiful objects. In art, this question can be viewed as anything which the artist intends, including invocations in viewers, design goals, and conceptual inquiry. Complexity can be thought of as the minimum number of tools required to answer the question, whether they be related to the the physical creation of the artwork or conceptual tools which the artist might employ. Distinction should be made between a complex question and multiple questions. The LHC is not answering a wide variety of questions. Similarly, art can be made ineffective by having a multitude of intentions. I will be curious going forward how true this is in practice and the degree to which this territory has already been explored by art writers and historians.
References:
Steven A Benner (2012), Aesthetics in synthesis and synthetic biology, Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2012, 16:581–585
Crystal Bennes (2012), Beautiful Propaganda: the myth of the Large Hadron Collider, Domus,
http://www.domusweb.it/en/op-ed/2012/02 ... lider.html
Paul Dirac (May 1963) The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature, Scientific American,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... of-nature/
James W. McAllister (2002) Recent work on aesthetics of
science, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16:1, 7-11, DOI:
10.1080/02698590120118783
Glenn Parsons (2012), The aesthetics of chemical biology, Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2012, 16:576–580
WARTOFSKY, M.W. (1994) Science and art: heuristic and aesthetic dimensions of scientific discovery, Philosophic Exchange, 24/25, pp. 5–12.