Thursday, January 17, 2008

Art preceding science (again)?

Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue.I just read an article in Seed magazine by Jonah Lehrer titled "The future of science... is art?" Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue. At nine pages, Lehrer's article is testing, but it's still definitely a must-read for anyone with a science-aware knack of mind. Reasons for the title to this post: check out this.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Art preceding science (again)?

Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue.I just read an article in Seed magazine by Jonah Lehrer titled "The future of science... is art?" Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue. At nine pages, Lehrer's article is testing, but it's still definitely a must-read for anyone with a science-aware knack of mind. Reasons for the title to this post: check out this.