Is there a difference between the sciences and the arts? Entering the words “science” and “literature” into the libraries search engine brings up a large amount of works, often with “Science and Literature” followed by various subtitles, which at least demonstrates there has been a lot of research and study into this question. The individuals in each field may have, as Snow points out, “ceased to communicate at all” [1] with each other, but that does not mean the disciplines themselves have little in common. The works within one of these fields, such as fractal art in the “art” field, bridge this “gap” by showing how interdependent science and art are.
Look at a photo representation of the Earth; it appears spherical like a ball with a smooth surface. But we know this to be untrue; the surface is anything but smooth with deep ravines and canyons carved into the surface, while high mountains jut out of it. Look at one of the mountains from a distance, and its surface appears to be relatively smooth. Yet with a closer look, the mountain is made up of more irregularities of ravines, rocks and trees. Each successively smaller detail of these objects also contains surface irregularities on down to the molecular level (and perhaps further than that.) Benoît Mandelbrot, in The Fractal Geometry Of Nature, uses the word fractal to help describe the true geometric values of objects with surface irregularities, as plane geometry is used for objects with smooth surfaces that do not exist in the real world.[2]
Fractal art can be seen as a “scientific” art, as it is the visual expression of the mathematical equations used to describe this “fractal geometry.” Fractal art often uses computer programs, since the geometric equations are extremely complicated. Many times an artist will create a mathematical image by choosing an equation, magnify and explore areas of that equation for interesting details, and assign colors to points in the equation. Just as infinite detail is revealed by the magnification of the Earth in the example above, the fractal can be magnified as the artist looks for provocative or aesthetically pleasing images.
The artist Jean-Pierre Hébert has a website displaying many examples of his math-based art. The work I want to look at here is his "metagon 256". The artwork is created on real sand, using a computer driven ball to roll around, tracing an image into the sand. The result is an aesthetically pleasing representation of an algorithm.
While I do not believe the work is about the distance between the sciences and the arts, I do believe it helps bridge the gap between the two cultures. Not only is this work a visual representation (the arts) of a mathematical equation (the sciences,) but it is a work that could not exist without either of the two. Hébert could not have created this without the aid of a computer; there are simply too many repetitive mathematical computations involved. Yet a computer could not have created this without Hébert’s artistic sensibilities, as he uses a computer and mathematics as tools to manipulate the sand, lighting, etc. to produce his work.
I feel the gap between art and science is a perceived gap and art, such as "metagon 256", that is dependent on science for its creation helps show there is no real “gap.” Conversely, science often uses art in the form of graphs, charts, etc. to help represent and demonstrate its theories and works. This gap is perhaps between the “cultures” of the arts and sciences since it is perceived by some of the people practicing in the two fields, but it is not between art and science.
Notes
[1] colorado.edu/English/courses/DigitalMedia/readings/SnowTwoCultures
[2] Mandelbrot, Benoît. The Fractal Geometry Of Nature. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1982.