CurremtComments@EUGENE GARFIELD

INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC lNFORMATl ON@3501 MA~KET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 191Cd

Art and Science. Part 1.The Art-Science Connection

Number 8 February 20, 1989,

Ilk two-part essay examines relationships between the worlds of art and science. Part 1 considersvarious theoretical and historical connections between the two spheres, Photography and other tech-nological developments and their contributions to art are also discussed, as are medical and scientificillustration. The second part will examine various ways in which science and technology have been

applied in the service of art.

The interaction between the worlds of wi-ence and the humanities, as our readersknow, has been a recurring theme in Cur-rent Contentsm. The many comections be-

tween art and science have been examined

in essays concerning poetry, metaphor, andartwork at ISI@, to name the most recentexamples. 1-6 Despite C. P. Snow’s well-krtown construct regarding the “two cul-tures” of science and the humanities and thealleged gulf of’ ‘mutual incomprehension”separating them,7 there are aspects of artand science that intertwine and overlap. Inthis two-part essay, we will examine just afew of those aspects. However, in so doing,we will first consider the study of art andscience as a discipline unto itself by survey-ing some of its practitioners, publications,and institutions. This is a broad and multi-farious specialty, of course, requiring farmore space than we could hope to give it;but by selecting a few topics, issues, and ex-amples of scholarship, we can attempt toconvey a sense of what is involved in thestudy of art and science.

Artists, Scientists, and Nature

While their activities may differ, scien-tists and artists share one essential compo-nent in their work. In the words of physiol-

ogist A.L. Copley (who creates paintingsand graphic art under the name L. Alcop-Iey), “What is common to both art and sci-ence is the creative process and the synthet-ic thinking in both human endeavors. ” 8Robert S. Root-Bernstein, Departments ofNatural Science and Physiology, MichiganState University, East Lansing, discusses“visual thinking. ” He notes that many re-nowned scientists, most of whom were alsoaccomplished in the arts, displayed a knackfor “visualizing imagined worlds. ” AlbertEinstein, for one, was adept at the “visualimagining of thought experiments.” Thisform of visual thirdcing, as Root-Bernsteinnotes, was essential to Einstein’s work. g

Creativity is another specialty that we willaddress in a forthcoming essay. We can say,however, that the scientist who develops atheory or designs an expwintent is no lesscreative than the artist who produces a pairtt-ing or sculpture. Michael J. Moravcsik, In-stitute of Theoretical Science, University ofOregon, Eugene, writing on the similaritiesbetween artists and scientists, also notes thatartists and scientists share certain motiva-tions. These include a drive to be creativeand to make something of their talents andcapabilities. Artists and aeientista, accordingto Moravcsik, share a sensitivity to aesthet-ics in their work, although their criteria for

54

“beauty” may be quite different. Many alsoshare a desire to make a positive contribu-tion to the welfare of humanity. 10

It strikes me that artists and scientistsshare other characteristics in the way theygo about their work. Both groups, for ex-ample, are noted for a certain impatience oruneasiness with the conventional demandsof social interaction, preferring to toil incomparative solitude in the sanctuary of thestudio or the lab. Artists and scientists, fur-thermore, are otlen driven by a sense of mis-sion or curiosity that maybe compelling andimmdlate only to them-although both cer-tainly desire to see their ideas and labors ap-preciated by others. When they do bringforth their work, however, they have noguarantee. that it will succeed, or last. Thepainting or sculpture, whether or not itarouses any interest in the marketplace orthe critic’s column, will fade or erode overtime. Similarly, the scientific paper, if it istypical, may not be widely acknowledgedonce it is published. A large percentage ofpapers are barely cited. And even CifatkmClassics” are eventually superseded-aged,in effect—by subsequent work. Obviously,neither scientists nor artists are deterred bysuch daunting prospects for immortality.

Scientists and artists share another impx-tant attributtx their labors depend largely oninterpreting nature, or the natural world.Nature, of course, has been one of the mainsources of artistic inspiration for as long ashumans have made art. Jeannette Murray isart adviser to the American Association forthe Advancement of Science (AAAS),Washington, DC. She notes that the paint-ings applied to cave walls in Ice Age Europeapproximately 10,000 to 15,0(!0 years agorepresent what is’ ‘perhaps the first instanceof the interweaving of art and science. ” IIThese paintings-of animals, weapons, andother images of the hunt—demonstrate thateven primitive humans had a drive to inter-pret and depict their experience of the phys-ical world.

Thousands of years later, this drive is un-diminished. Artists in various media still goabout observing, interpreting, and render-

ing nature-activities not at all dissimilar tothose performed by scientists. Scientists,however, have at their disposrd a variety oftwhnological devices: microscopes, tele-scopes, cameras, and other sophisticatedimaging and sensing devices. According toMichael J. Clark, Department of Geogra-phy, University of Southampton, UK, thisraises questions regarding the relationshipbetween image and reality. Clark notes thatthere are several implications to such devel-opments as “image creation using digitaldata matrices” and “analytical techniquesdesigned to manipulate the data so as to re-veal pattern or information that is not ini-tially ‘visible.’ ‘‘ Such manipulation, henotes, “highlights the conflict between vi-sion, illusion and delusion in the scientificimaging of the environment .. .. It underlinesthe difficulty of handling notions such as ac-curacy, representativeness and even of truthitself. ” 12

The British aestheticiart Harold Osbornealso discusses attists, scientists, and their re-lationship to nature. Both groups, he notes,seek a sense of order in the natural world.He notes that, while an aesthetic responsemay be elicited by “the diverse kinds of or-der in nature discovered and described byscientists, ‘‘ it is artworks made by artists thatare “the most powerfully effective objectsfor the evocation and expansion of aestheticexperience . . . . Scientists, on the contrary,discover but do not make the order that oc-curs in nature. But the statements they makeabout order may themselves have intellec-tual beauty. ‘‘13 The British mathematician

G.H. Hardy (1877-1947) wrote that beautyis the first test in the sciences, as in the arts;there is not, he noted, a permanent place inthe world for “ugly mathematics. ” 14Phi-losopher L.L. Whyte (1896-1972), writingin 1957, observed that’ ‘both science and arthave to do with ordered complexity. ” 15

Historical Connections

Prehistoric cave paintings, as noted above,represent what may be the first merging ofart and science. In the many centuries since,

55

thatrelationship has developed. Science his-torian Alistair C. Crombie, Trinity College,Oxford, UK (now retired), traces the con-nections Mween art and science in the mod-em world. Writing in a 1986 issue of thejournal DaeaWus devoted entirely to art andscience, Crombie discusses the influence ofancient Greece and its “moral and intellec-tual commitments. ‘’16 These included a“mathematically and causally structured sci-ence of nature, a morally structured drama,and painting and music each structured tomake their aesthetic or dramatic effects. ”The rational tradition that was manifest inGreek science and art continued into theRenaissance, in a style that Crombie refersto as “experimentally controlled postula-tion. ”lc

The Renaissance gave us some of themore notable figures in the histosy of art andscience—most notably, Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519). His Nofebooks, embracing art,architecture, philosophy, astronomy, engi-neering, and a variety of other physical andnatural sciences, provide powerful evidenceof the breadth of Leonardo’s interests andachievements. 17 His efforts as an artistwere informed by extensive sdf-training inscience, including the dissection of humanbcxiies. As historian Dhste Kirkpatricknotes, Leonardo believed that it was neces-sary to master the body’s depths to accurate-ly portray its surfaces. Such anatomicaldrawings as Principal Organs and ArterialSystems of the Femaie Body, says Kkkpat-rick, are remarkable not only for their ar-tistic technique and composition, but fortheir precision and accuracy in recording thestructure of the human body. 1S

Another man of the Renaissance whosecareer combined achievements in art and sci-ence was Galileo (1564-1642). As Crombienotes, Galileo lived from Michelangelo’sdeath to Isaac Newton’s birth, thus mark-ing the transition between “two great Eu-ropean intellectual movements .. .from theworld of the rational constructive artist tothat of the rational experimental scien-tist. ” 16Trained in music and in perspectivedrawing, Galileo also possessed expertise in

mathematics, physics, and astronomy. Asscience historian Stillman Drake, Univer-sity of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, notes inthe book Art, Science, and History in theRenaissance, it was not uncommon for menof that time to be versed in those three sep-arate scientific disciplines. Galiko, howev-er, by applying mathematics to physics andphysics to astronomy, was the first to com-bine these fields in a truly significantway. ]g

Throughout the Renaissance, art and sci-ence continued to develop and interact. Inparticular, according to Murray, Holland inthe seventeenth century represented a timeand place where scientific inquiry becameso pervasive that” science and art were in-separable. ,, t 1 Newly developed lenses ‘d

mirrors were being applied to astronomy,microscopy, and the study of optical phe-nomena. These developments offered newviews of nature to artists and scientists alike.Murray mentions the paintings of Jan Ver-meer (1632-1675), wh~ch, with their use ofperspective, light, and scrupulous attentionto detail, seem to express “a scientist’sknowledge of the observable. ” 11

The interaction of art and science was notconfined to Europe. As historian BrookeHindle notes, the Renaissance tradition ofgifted, accomplished individuals whose con-rnbutions encompassed both science and thehumanities could also be found in eigh-teenth-century America. Hindle discussesCharles Willson Peale (1741-1827), theleading portraitist of the Revolutionary pe-riod. Peale (who occupies a prominent placein Philadelphia history) turned to paintingafter a brief career as a craftsman trainedin watch repair. Even after achieving suc-cess as an artist, he retained his mechanicalbent and made a mark as an inventor—ofstoves, bridges, and various other mechan-ical devices. Hindle discusses two otherpainters: Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872),who is better known as the inventor of theelectromagnetic telegraph, and muralist andinventor Rufus Porter,20 who, as we notedin a 1981essay, founded ScientzjicAmericanin 1845.21

56

Even today, many of our most eminentscientists continue to be trained in the arts.Robert R. Wilson, Fermi National Accel-erator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois, for ex-ample, not only designed the particle accel-erator for that facility, but also guided thelab’s architectural design and produced anumber of large-scale sculptures for it.22

Modern Sehmce and Modern Art

Just as technology-whether in the formof seventeenth-centmy micmpes or moremodem developments-changed the wayscience was done (and will surely continueto change it), so did technology change art.One such technological development was theinvention of photography in the early nine-teenth century. Photography provides an-other means of recording and interpretingthe world—an activity, as we noted earlier,that is fundamental to both artists andscientists.

The history of photography demonstratesthat technological change is not always im-mediately weicome. Jonathan Benthall, Roy-al Anthropological Institute, London, UK,discussing this point in his book Science andTechnology in Art Today, relates that in itsinfancy photography was perceived as a“threat and a pollution” by the academicartists of the day.zq On the other hand, inZhe Painter and the Photograph, art histo-rian Van Deren Coke, Arizona State UN-versity, Tempe, notes that, while somereacted against photography, others’ ‘soughtinspiration from the simulated realism pro-duced by the camera. In a few years pho-tography changed the artist’s viewpoint,both technically and philosophically .. . . Therole of the artist as a recorder of nature wasencouraged, as standards for judging art be-gan to “bebased on the kind of exactitudefound in photographs. ”’24 (p. 1)

Photography, far from remaining an ad-junct to painting, was quick to come into itsown as an art form. One early photographerwhose work endures for its scientific as wellas artistic validity is Eadweard Muybridge(1830-1904), who emigrated from his native

England to the US in the late 1860s. AsCoke points out, Muybridge’s motionstudies of running horses, for example, re-corded for the first time all four of a horse’shooves off the ground at one stage of itsstride-a representation that painters hadavoided as being unrealistic.zq (p. 155) Inshort, here was artwork that offered a newperspective on the physical world, addingto our knowledge of animal physiology andbehavior.

Subsequent advances in photographictechnology brought a new understanding ofphysical events and processes that had pre-viously occupied a reahn beyond human per-ception. The strobe light, for example, de-veloped around 1930 by Harold E. Edger-ton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), Cambridge, permitted the photo-graphic capture of the most instantaneousand fleeting events—a bullet piercing an ap-ple, for example, or the motion of a hum-mingbird’s wings. Stopping Time, a bookof photographs collected from Edgerton’slong and illustrious career, was released in1987.2s

The strobe was also utilized to striking ar-tistic effect by photographer Berenice Ab-bott, who was part of the Physical SciencesStudy Committee (PSSC) at MIT in the late1950s. The PSSC, like many other agenciesand committees at that time, had the mis-sion of assessing and improving US scienceeducation following the 1957 launch of theUSSR’s satellite Sputnik. Abbott createdhundreds of photographs illustrating physi-cal principles for a textbook designed to re-vitalize high-school physics education. Thir-ty years later, these images remain engross-ing: a pendulum, captured at each stage ofits swing, illustrates potentiaJ and kinetic en-ergy; light rays strike a prism and changedirection; a wrench, caught in perfect pro-file, spins through black space.

Many of Abbott’s photographs were gath-ered for a show entitled’ ‘Berenice Abbott:The Beauty of Physics, ” which appearedtwo years ago at the New York Academyof Sciences. The show’s program containeda quote from Abbott in 1939 on the need for

57

“a friendly interpreter between science andthelayman ... . I believe that photography canbe this spokesman as no other form of ex-pression can be,” said Abbott. “There isan essential unity between photography, sci-ence’s child, and science, the parent.’ ’26

More recent developments, which haveextended the range of the human eye evenfurther, also lend themselves to artistic con-sideration. Jean Jacques Trillat, professorof electronic microscopy and diffraction,University of Paris, France, discusses howimages produced by X-ray radiography andelectron microscopy relate to abstract paint-ing. Comparing, for example, a motion-ftied, modernist painting of a running girlwith an electron microphotograph of leadtelluride decorated by germs of crystalliza-tion, Trillat offers several hypotheses. Heposits, for instance, that modem artists havebeen aware of recent work in physics andhave taken inspiration from the images pro-duced by modem devices.zT

Trillat also offers a more timdamental ex-planation: He speculates that, since many ofthe paintings he discusses actually pretiretheir electron-microscopic counterparts, itis possible that the painter uncoruciously re-discovers forms that nature has created. Inother words, as he puts it, “the painter pro-jects his state of mind on canvas and.. oftenthe forms his imagination has created resem-ble those that the scientist independently dis-covers with instruments.’ V7

Paul C. Vitz and Arnold B. Glimcher, intheir book Modem An and Modem Science,discuss at greater length how science andtechnology have affected the course and con-tent of art. “The period of modem art, ”they note, “is not interpretable without anunderstanding of the powerful contributionsof modem science.’ ’28

scientific Images as Art

As we’ve observed, images produced byvarious technologicrd means-an electronmicroscope, for example-can possess un-deniable artistic merit. David R. Kaplan, In-stitute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve

University, Cleveland, Ohio, writes aboutthe images that appear on the covers of suchjournals as Science, Nature, and Perspec-tives in Biology and Medicine. He cites oneexample and its effect on him: a picture ofthe cerebral cortex, illuminated by blue lightand counterstained with brown dye, does notcause him to wonder about gray matter orwhite matter or neurotransrnitters, but ratherto “marvel at the beauty. ” Noting the’ ‘ex-emplary color, form and composition” thatcharacterize the frontpieces of these jour-nals, he concludes that such covers are un-questionably art. “The covers, ” he says,“proclaim in artistic terms the value andquality of the science within.’ ’29

A similar thought is expressed by RichardA. Lippin, a physician with the ARCOChemical Company, Newtown Square,Pemsylvania. Lippin writes of the beautifulimages being produced in hospitals by suchtechnologies as three-dimensional radiogra-phy and nuclear magnetic resonance. “Artcan be found as well in our research facili-ties, ” he notes, “where highly sophisticat-ed scientific computers are producing ob-jective yet artistic models of heretoforeunfathomable molecular constructs.’ ‘soLippin is president of the InternationalArts-h4e&cine Association, one of the or-ganizations we’ll be discussing in the sec-ond paxIof this essay. The aesthetics of formin the life sciences have also been discussedby science historian Philip C. Ritterbush, insuch works as Zhe Art of Organic Fomis.31

Another pertinent field that should not beoverlooked is scientific aud medical illustra-tion. Frank H. Netter, a surgeon who gaveup hk career to become a full-time medicalillustrator, discusses the history of this field,citing in particular the “unrivaled ccmtribu-tions” of Leonardo, whose work as an anat-omist and illustrator we have already men-tioned. Netter also discusses the sixteenth-century Belgian anatomist Andreas Vesali-us (1514-1564), whose works were the fore-rumers of many modem anatomic at-Iases.sz

Historian William B. Ashworth, Jr., Uni-versity of Missouri, Kansas City, examines

58

the roots of seventeenth-century scientificiJJustration. Many illustrations of science inthat century, he notes, were not original butwere adapted from various sixteenti%nturysources, many of them nonscientific; theseincluded emblem books, fable collections,and editions of engravings.ss

As Netter points out, a technological de-velopment that greatly advanced medical il-lustration was the invention of lithographyaround 1800. This printing process elimi-nated the need to reproduce printed illustra-tions from woodcuts or from copper or steelengravings, allowing for vastly superior re-production of detail and color. Lithographymade possible the printing of several exqui-sitely illustrated textbooks on anatomy, med-icine, and surgery in the nineteenth century.Clearly, as Netter points out, the develop-ment of medical illustration was closely tiedto improvements in the printing process.sz

While admitting that the camera can easilyoutdo the artist in terms of a realistic pic-ture, Netter points out that the medical art-ist has the advantage of being able to selectwhich details to emphasize and which toeliminate. He demonstrates this point bycomparing a photograph of the first artifi-cial-heart implantation with one of his ownillustrations of the procedure. 32 The clari-ty of the drawing is most impressive.

Earlier, we mentioned the Philadelphiaartist Peaie. Another noted Philadelphiapainter who, while not a medical illustratorper se, created some of his most striking im-ages in medical settings was Thomas Eakins(1844-1916). In particular, his 1875 paint-ing Gross Clinic offers an unflinchingly real-istic depiction of an operation to removedead bone from the thigh of a male patient.As noted by art historian Michael Fried,Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,Maryland, the use of detail-such as the glis-tening blood on the hand of surgeon Samu-el David Gross, who lectures to a hall fullof medical students as he performs the pro-cedure-gives Gross Clinic a vivid and un-settling impact. ~ Discussing Gross Clinic(as well as other works combining art andanatomy, from the time of Leonardo), Helen

Osterman Borowitz, Cleveland Museum ofArt, notes that the painting stirred consid-erable controversy in its day and was large-ly rejected by art critics and the public. Nowacknowledged as a masterpiece, it is perma-nently located at Jefferson Mdlcal College,Thomas Jefferson University, Philadel-phia.ss

Today, of course, scientific illustration isa full-fledged profession, as witnessed bysuch organizations as the Guild of NaturalScience Ilhsstrators, founded at the smi&sonian Institution, Washington, DC, in1968. The guild has a membership of over1,000 worldwide. The craft of scientific il-lustration has become a legitimate course ofstudy in such schools as the Rhode IslandSchool of Design, Providence, which has of-fered a certificate program in the field since1983. In addition to numerous other under-graduate programs, graduate degrees in sci-entific and medical illustration are offeredby the Medical College of Georgia, Augus-ta; the Rochester Institute of Technology,New York; Johns Hopkins University; andthe University of Illinois, Urbana. This pastfall the American Museum of Natural His-tory, New York, featured an exhibit of fishillustrations entitled “Drawn from the Sea:Art in the Service of Ichthyology. ” Someof the artwork was reproduced in the No-vember issue of the museum’s magazine,Natural History .36The practicrd aspects ofscientific illustration, such as tinding an il-lustrator and evaluating quality, are dis-cussed by Elaine R.S. Hodges, an artist withthe Smithsonian Institution’s National Mu-seum of Naturrd History, Washington, DC,in a recent issue of Bioscience.37

Artistic presentations of science haveshown up in some unusual places—even oncurrency. Anthony R. Michaelis, editor, In-terdisciplinary Science Reviews, Bristol,UK, provides a historical review of bank-notes with illustrations depicting noteworthyobjects and individuals in science and tech-nology. He provides a listing of scientistsand engineers who have appeared on papercurrency throughout the world; the list in-cludes Galileo, Newton, Emtein, and I.muis

59

Tabte 1: Sete@edtfst ofjnmmata rqrnrtingrmttseuaeOf SCielteeasrd tectlnokrgy hs art, the UWOf M inthe physical smdlife aciencea, and creativity in art andscience. The first year of publication is included inparentheses.

American Jmago (1939)Wayne State University PressDetroit, Ml

Arts in psychotherapy (1973)Pergamon PressOxford, United Kingdom

British Journat of Aesthetics (1%X3)Oxford University PressOxford, United Kingdom

Burlington Magazin-s(1903)Burlington Magazine publishingLondon, United Kingdom

Computer Music Journal (1977)MfT PressCambridge, MA

f)aeddus (1958)American Academy of Arts and SciencesCanton, MA

Leonardo (1966)Pergarrron PressOxford, United Kingdom

Media Culture & Society (1979)Sage PublicationsLondon, United Kingdom

Representations (1983)University of California PressBerkeley, CA

Pasteur. Michaelis concludes that appear-ances by scientists on banknotes have beenrelatively rare—a situation he would like tosee corrected. ss

To Promote the Study of Art and Science

So far we have discussed several individ-uals who distinguished themselves in bothart and science. There is one more personwho merits mention here: Frank Malina, anaeronautical and rocket engineer whoworked for 20 years in technical fields be-fore switching to painting. In the course ofhis own work and his discussions with otherartist-scientists, Mahta discovered that, un-like scientists and technicians, artists had noliterary vehicle for exchanging ideas and in-formation. In 1968, he founded the journal

Leonardo (aptly named, of course, for Leo-nardo da Vinci).

Twenty-one years later, and eight yearsafter Malina’s death, the journal continuesto appear, sponsored by the International So-ciety for the Arts, Sciences, and Technolo-gy, San Francisco, California. Editor Patn-ela Grant-Ryan presented a tribute to Malinain a 1987 issue marking Leonardo’s 20thyear of publication. 39 Articles in honar-do—many of which I have cited in this es-say—cover a variety of topics pertaining tothe interrelationships between art and sci-ence. A 1980 issue included an extensivebibliography compiled by David R. Topper,Department of History, University of Win-nipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and John H. Hol-loway, Department of Chemistry, Univer-sity of Leicester, UK.~ Other journals thatreport on science and technology in the artsare listed in Table 1. A publication thatshould also be mentioned is Z7seSciences,published by the New York Academy of Sci-ences. Its essays, commentaries, and fea-tures are illustrated with vividly reproducedpaintings and graphics by noted artists. Theacademy often presents exhibitions of art-work that interprets or reflects the world ofscience. Similarly, AAAS, through its Artof Science and Technology program, pre-sents exhibitions of science-related art. An-other such program is conducted here inPhiladelphia at the University City ScienceCenter, where 1S1has its headquarters. Inaddition to its art gallery, the Science Cen-ter’s Art-in-Science projects have featuredworks in a variety of media.

In Part 2 of this essay, we will leek at par-ticular instances where science has &n ap-plied in the service of art, including com-puter art and holography; we’ll ako examinehe use of scientific techniques in conserva-

tion and restoration.

*****

My thanks to C.J. Fiscus and ChristopherKingfor their help in the preparation of this?ssay.

0;~ w

60

REFERENCES

1. Gti]eld E. Tbe pnetry-science cmrnectiort. Essays of on infomradon scientis~. Ptriladelphm: fSI press,1984. Vol. 6. p. 223-8.

2. -------- Frrrther reflections on the perry-science comection. fbid., 1988. Vol. 9. p. 48-54.3. —-——. TIE metaphor-science connection. fbid, p, 316-23.4, .--—, ‘‘Cathedrsl of Mrar” by Guillermo Wagner Grsrrizo: riles tell the tale of hmnsn

achlevementa in science, irrformstion, and technology. Ibid. p. 130-5,5. --——-, Huichol art at ISI: “pilgrimage to Wirikura” by Emeteria Ma Msrtinez snd

“NirWs huicholes” by Lack Lucas. hid. p. 176-81.6. ----—. “Woman of the Earth” by Lark Lucas epitomizes the mriverardfemale ex~rienm.

/bid. p. 226-9.7, Snow C P. 77rerrvocrdrures and the scienri~c rewdruim. New York: Cambridge Univemity Press,

1959.58 p.8. Copley A L. On krruwledge in art srrd science. Leonardo 20:213-5, 1987.9. Roat-Bernstein R S. Visual thinking: the art of irrmginirrgreality. Tram. Arrw. PhiL .%x.

75:50-67, 1985.10. Moravcsik M J. Scientists rard mtisk: motivations, aspirations, approaches snd accomplishments.

Leonardo 7:255-9, 1974.11. Murray J. Religion, reality, srrd relativity: the scientific tradition in art. (Calhnun D, cd.) 1989

yearbook of science and rhe future. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedis Britannica, 1988. p. 8-29.12. Ctark M J. Illusion and &hrsion: the media snd the rrsturaf scientist. Lwnarda 19:65-70, 1986.13. Oaharne H. Concepts of order in tfre natursl sciences and in tbe visrud tine srta. Leonardo

14:290-4, 1981.14. Hardy G H. ,4 mathematician’s apology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1940.93 p.15. Whyte L L, Letter from a scientist to m artist. Leonardo 6:3514, 1973.16. CrornfAe A C. Experimerrtsl science and the ratiorrsl srtist in early modem Europe Daedalas

115(3):49-74, Snnrmer 1986.17. Rfchter J P, ed. lhe norebooks of Leorrar& da Vinci, New York Duver, 1970. Vol. 2.499 p.18. Kirkpatrick D. Science, art, snd the hurnsn irnsge. Mich, Quart. Rev. 24:222-50, 1985.19. Drake S. Mathernstics, astronomy, and physics in the work of Gslileo. (Singleton C S, cd.) An,

science, and hisrory in the Renaissance. BsMmore, MD: Johns Hupkins Press, 1%7. p. 305-30.20. H3rrdJeB. From art to technology sod science. Proc. Amer. Anriqwwiem Sot. %:25-37, 1986.21. Garfield E. scientific Arrrsrican-136 years of science joumrdism, Op. cif., 1983. Vol. 5, p. 116-22.

(Reprinted from. Currenr Conterrts (21):5-1 1, 25 May 1981.)22. Crypton D. Fermifab: where science is srt. Sci. Digesf Febrosry: 38-44; 74, 1986.23. Bentball J. Science and technology in arr mcfrry.New York: Prseger, 1972. p, 26.24. Coke V D. l?re ~“nter and the photograph. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1964.

324 p.25. Kayafas G, cd, Stopping time: the photographs of Harofd Edgerian. New York: Abrsma, 1987. 167 p.26. O’Neal H. i3erenice Abbott: rhs beauty of physics, 30 JrmuarY-27Msrch 1967. New York New York

Academy of Sciences, 1986. (Exh]bit program.)27. TriJtat J J. Art, aearbetics and physics: the contribution of physics to mcdem art. Lzonar&

3:47-54, 1970.28. Vita P C & Gfirncher A B. Madem an and modem science. New York: Pmeger, 1984. p, 7-8.29. Kaplan DR. Cover srt of science. Perspect. BioL Med. 31:185-7, 1988.30. Lippira R A. President’s mesasge. fnreti”onaf Arts-Medicine A.waciarimr June 1988.3 p.31. Ritterbuab PC. i’he art of orgm”c fomrs. Washington, DC: Smiefranrrianfrrstitution Press, 1968. 149 p.32. Netter F IL A picture is worth a tfrousmrdwords. @emsteirr E, cd.) 1989 medical and Aeakh annual.

Chicago, IL Encyclopedia Brbarrnica, 1988. p. 104-19.33. Ashwortfr W B. Marcus Gheerserts and the Aesopic connection in aeventeartlwentmy scientific

illustration. ArI J. 44:132-8, 1984.34. Fried M. Realism, writing, snd disfigrrration in Thomas Eakins’s Grass Clinic, with a postscript on

Stephen Cram’s upmmd faces. Represetrtarion.v (9):33-104, Winter 1985.35. Bnrowitz H O. The scalpel and the bmsh. Anatomy snd art from Lemrsrdo ds Virwi to Thormw E&m..

Cleveiand Clin. Qruzrt. 53:61-73, 1986.36. Smith M. Drawn from the sea. Natur. Hist. 97(1 1):66-73, November 1988.37. Hodges E R S. ,Wentific illusrraeion: a working relationship between the scientist snd artist. Bioscience

39(2):104-11, Februsry 1989.38. Mfchaeiia AR. ‘fhe barrkrrowaof science, hrterrfi.rcifdirr.Sci. Rev. 13:251-63, 1988.39. Grartt-Rytm P. Why korrarrb? Past, present and future. Leonardo 20:397-9, 1987.40. Topper D R & Hotloway J H. Interrelationships between the visusl arta, science and technology:

a bibliography. Leonardo 13:29-33, 1980.

61