The folks at eavesmade used to only have scientist ornaments. Now they have scientist valentines and coasters. Adorable! (Can you guess what Wallace and Mendel say on their Valentines?)
The folks at eavesmade used to only have scientist ornaments. Now they have scientist valentines and coasters. Adorable! (Can you guess what Wallace and Mendel say on their Valentines?)
Whale Fall (after life of a whale) by Sharon Shattuck is a charming and unusual film that uses paper puppetry to show the ecological “afterlife” of a whale. The overall effect is a little Steve Zissou, a little arts-and-crafts, and pretty much as literal a case of bio-ephemera as you can get.
I think this film also elicits the feelings of wonder, poignancy, and interconnectedness that the author of “Reclaiming a Sense of the Sacred,” the essay from my previous post, suggests science can’t really speak to. She might well say that the emotional/spiritual aspects of the film come from its artistic presentation, not the underlying science, but I would say both are needed.
Via many places.
Ward Shelley’s “History of Science Fiction” seems almost exactly like what you’d get if xkcd’s Randall Munroe illustrated the anatomy of a snail-cephalopod hybrid. Sweet!
This fascinating essay by Marilynne Robinson, “Reclaiming a Sense of the Sacred,” is a thoughtful and insightful piece of writing. But unfortunately, as noted by my friend Jacob, it completely fails to distinguish science from scientism (or, I would hasten to add, techno-optimism). Thus, my experience of reading it was whiplash-inducing: after each paragraph, I suffered an overwhelming urge to blurt an enthusiastic “yes!” or an affronted “no!” and write an entire blog post right then. (Since it is a very long essay, that would have been insane.)
Required reading: this essay by Pablo Garcia-Lopez on the interaction between neuroscience and the arts:
My work as an artist is directly inspired by my experience as a neuroscientist. I completed my PhD in conjunction with the Museum Cajal, working with the original slides and scientific drawings of Santiago Ramon y Cajal (1852–1934). Besides being completely astonished by the historical and current neuroscientific concepts, and esthetics of his histological slides, drawings, (Garcia-Lopez et al., 2010), articles, and books, I was impressed by the great abundance of metaphors that he employed in his scientific writings. (source)
Overall, it is a very interesting essay from the point of view of an artist who is deliberately using art as a medium to shape the cultural perception of science. I might quibble, however, with using the “neuroculture” concept (credited to Frazzetto and Anker) to frame the essay, because I tend to view the interaction of art and science holistically, not field-by-field. Neuroscience is certainly “hot right now,” and Garcia-Lopez has focused both his scientific training and his art on the brain, so Garcia-Lopez may quite reasonably focus on what he knows. But I’d caution that too much reliance on “neuroculture” as a unique, particularly worthy or special pairing of biology and culture diminishes the broader themes Garcia-Lopez discusses, such as organic and mechanistic metaphors, and the evolution of science as a tool or muse of artists in the age of mechanical reproduction.
Thanks to Jennifer Ouellette for linking to this one.
LIFE magazine may be no more, but the LIFE website still has lovely archival eye candy including these b/w photos, circa 1950, of skeletons and bones. Says the website,
Seen in a certain light, and photographed for LIFE by the great Andreas Feininger — a craftsman with the eye of a scientist and the heart of an artist (or vice versa) — the bones of animals as varied in size, behavior, and temperament as fish, bats, birds, elephants, hummingbirds, and humans are terribly eloquent, raising questions about life, death, and what we ultimately leave behind. (source)
I find the textual juxtaposition of art and science here fascinating – it’s a ubiquitous, perhaps even de rigeur juxtaposition, in the context of anatomical art. But (like the bones!) it’s fundamentally hollow. What is the supposed difference between the “heart/eye of an artist,” and the same organ in a scientist? The “or vice versa” aside makes it clear the copywriter has no clear difference in mind – should we? Is the line mere formalist obiesance to a categorical worldview, a hipsterish allusion to CP Snow? Does it invoke an “Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome – one assumes the art/science distinction must mean something because people constantly say it does, even when the distinction is barely sketched, much less theorized? And what role is the “craftsman” bit playing, since “craft” is generally derided as neither art nor science?
Oh, who cares. There are pretty pictures of bones at the link!
A new trend? Measurement/conversion towels seem to be everywhere. . .
Towel by Bailey Doesn’t Bark, at Anthropologie ($32)
Pop quiz: which plague took more lives – the Black Death, measles, or Spanish flu? Find out in a surprisingly eye-pleasing way with this infographic from Column Five Media and GOOD (snippet below):
I’m a little creeped out that an infographic about massive casualties looks kinda like a pretty Anthropologie floral apron, but hey, that’s aesthetics.
Legophemera FTW. If you have not yet seen this street art illusion of a Lego terra cotta army, watch now – before your techie-artsy-hipster cred is permanently diminished!
Video: “Lego Army,” by Leon Keer at the Sarasota Chalk Festival 2011.
(Relatedly, I wrote a post about anamorphic illusions at Scienceblogs a couple of years ago.)
Conelrad’s fascinating cold war culture jukebox, Atomic Platters, offers lyrics and historical context spanning several decades of popular atomic-themed music. Many of the songs unsurprisingly convey a sense of unprecedented, un-romanticized astonishment and awe. Consider the following gem:
Continue reading