Klik op een omslag om naar Google Boeken te gaan.
Bezig met laden... Reductionism in Art and Brain Science: Bridging the Two Cultures (origineel 2016; editie 2016)door Eric Kandel (Auteur)
Informatie over het werkReductionism in Art and Brain Science door Eric Kandel (2016)
Geen Bezig met laden...
Meld je aan bij LibraryThing om erachter te komen of je dit boek goed zult vinden. Op dit moment geen Discussie gesprekken over dit boek. geen besprekingen | voeg een bespreking toe
Prijzen
Are art and science separated by an unbridgeable divide? Can they find common ground? In this new book, neuroscientist Eric R. Kandel, whose remarkable scientific career and deep interest in art give him a unique perspective, demonstrates how science can inform the way we experience a work of art and seek to understand its meaning. Kandel illustrates how reductionism ?the distillation of larger scientific or aesthetic concepts into smaller, more tractable components ?has been used by scientists and artists alike to pursue their respective truths. He draws on his Nobel Prize-winning work revealing the neurobiological underpinnings of learning and memory in sea slugs to shed light on the complex workings of the mental processes of higher animals. In Reductionism in Art and Brain Science, Kandel shows how this radically reductionist approach, applied to the most complex puzzle of our time ?the brain ?has been employed by modern artists who distill their subjective world into color, form, and light. Kandel demonstrates through bottom-up sensory and top-down cognitive functions how science can explore the complexities of human perception and help us to perceive, appreciate, and understand great works of art. At the heart of the book is an elegant elucidation of the contribution of reductionism to the evolution of modern art and its role in a monumental shift in artistic perspective. Reductionism steered the transition from figurative art to the first explorations of abstract art reflected in the works of Turner, Monet, Kandinsky, Schoenberg, and Mondrian. Kandel explains how, in the postwar era, Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Louis, Turrell, and Flavin used a reductionist approach to arrive at their abstract expressionism and how Katz, Warhol, Close, and Sandback built upon the advances of the New York School to reimagine figurative and minimal art. Featuring captivating drawings of the brain alongside full-color reproductions of modern art masterpieces, this book draws out the common concerns of science and art and how they illuminate each other. Geen bibliotheekbeschrijvingen gevonden. |
Actuele discussiesGeenPopulaire omslagen
Google Books — Bezig met laden... GenresDewey Decimale Classificatie (DDC)700.1The arts Modified subdivisions of the arts Standard subdivisions of the arts Philosophy and theory of the artsLC-classificatieWaarderingGemiddelde:
Ben jij dit?Word een LibraryThing Auteur. |
The advance of science has been to break down, to reduce, all processes to their smallest fundamental events. For example, materials were once understood as whole things, then as attribute and extension, then as atoms, then subatomic particles, and finally as field interactions. All of this is true, but it doesn’t help an engineer determine the fatigue strength of a piece of steel. Macro properties are not destroyed by understanding micro properties. The same is true of, say, consciousness. If we break it down, understand it in terms of chemistry and electrical interaction that should not stop people using the higher understanding as a model. It remains analysable as a single unit, even when its basis is fully understood in terms of tiny events. Where this advance does cause a problem is when certain philosophies depend on a particular model for their existence. Life is completely understood as chemistry, but that causes problems for any philosophy that requires it to be separate from chemistry. The only people who need to be scared of reductionism in this sense are those whose philosophy is built on “the spark of life”, or some other piece of magic. As for the rest of things, an irregular set of surfaces, red in colour, with a linear green attachment, comprising various mechanisms for the chemical and photosynthetic transfer of energy, is still a rose by any other name, and it still smells as sweet.
Of course as Kandel implicitly suggests it depends on what we mean by 'fear', I suppose. There are actual limits to the utility of reductionism. Like any tools, the answers reductionism gives you depends on the precise nature of the tools you use. As an analogy imagine you have a cylindrical chocolate cake. You take a knife, and make one plane cut that passes through the centre of the cake. How big are the resulting pieces? Theoretically, the answer is that you have two halves. But in reality? In reality, you also have crumbs, and bits stick to the knife. How much of each depends on things like how dry or moist the cake is, how smooth the knife is, etc., etc., etc. We really consider the analogous properties of the analytical tools we use when we perform reductionist science. Even numbers are not immune. Numbers are often treated as if they are somehow incredibly precise, when in fact we use them to mean very different things. 'One' football team has little in common with 'one' maggot, 'one' forest, 'one' universe . . . Even in a more abstract sense, numerical systems do not agree. Fractions and decimals cannot be exactly mapped one to the other, for example. So I don't fear reductionism; but I do find myself bemused as to why this (or any other) scientific method is treated as if infallible; especially by those who can clearly see the problems with treating religious dogma as infallible. All scientific theories are descriptions; no matter how accurate, they are not 'the truth' any more than a map actually is the land it represents. ( )