Re: [APML] Re: Science in Astrophotos?

[stephen pitt <lthuedk@pe.net>]

Bert, a painting finished in four hours and measuring four feet on a
side, required sixty-plus drawings and a set pallet.  The pallet
required four days around the clock, with the studio littered with
colour test sheets on the floors and walls.  My immune system nearly
halted but my smile remains today in the memory.

The two disciplines, Art and Science both seek a durable read.  The best
stuff coming from one mind.   But mostly, its the artist who yells,
"It's either success or death!," though there are leapers from buildings
at the most prestigious Science schools.  Stephen


Bert Katzung wrote:

>   Thor (and Jerry): I couldn't agree more. In fact, I would say that
> it is no accident that there is a much greater interest in art of all
> forms among scientists than the other way around. Snow became famous
> writing books about the two cultures and while there certainly seems
> to be serious distaste for science amongst nonscientists, the exact
> opposite is true of scientists. Being one of the latter, I've always
> found it striking that such a great percentage of scientists are
> really serious amateur musicians, painters, or writers. Of course, the
> number of scientists and medical people who have gone way beyond
> amateur status in literature is huge. A lot of people seem to think
> that science is restricted to drudge work --- reducing data to tables
> and statistics. There certainly is that kind of work, and lots of it,
> in most areas of science, but that usually follows the purely
> intuitive/creative work that produces the hypotheses that are then
> refuted or supported by the hard data reduction. Imagine the mental
> process leading to the double helix hypothesis for DNA. If that wasn't
> an "artistic" creative process, then nothing that sculptors do is
> either. My 2 cents.... Bert Bert Katzung
> katzung1@attbi.com
> www.astronomy-images.com
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Thor Olson
>      To: 'astro-photo@seds.org'
>      Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:07 PM
>      Subject: RE: [APML] Re: Science in Astrophotos?
>
>
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Jerry Lodriguss [mailto:jml@astropix.com]
>      > If scientists are so different than artists, why are the
>      > physicists so hung
>      > up on the "beauty" of a theory?
>
>      Does anyone else find it interesting that science and art
>      are so tightly coupled?  It's my opinion that the best
>      scientists
>      and the best artists have in common a strong streak of
>      creativity.  You don't explain Nature without the creative
>      inspiration that interprets our observations.  You don't
>      impact the human spirit without the creative inspiration
>      to affect our senses.
>
>      Thor Olson
>      EFI-Minnesota                 email:
>      mailto:thor.olson@efi.com
>      web-res astrophotos at:
>      http://home.att.net/~nightscapes
>
>         "Man has ten, computers have two, Nature has e fingers."
>
>



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>