Is management an art or a science? This is the direction in which the conversation in the comments section of an earlier post on Recession-proofing Your Career veered. The answer, just as with other questions in life, is not clear cut, nor all-pleasing at all times.
But to me, the question should be different. Are art and science really so different, so different as to be used as antonyms of some sort? I do not think so. The Wellcome Trust, the UK’s largest medical research charity, also seems to consider art inspired by science a cause worthy of some £5.5M since 2002.
The beauty of science and mathematics, in my mind, is better than, if not at least akin to the best of art. As some of you may know from my past writings, I am no philistine, a term which is a shame to use as a derogation, when the early history of Philistines shows them to be quite a cultured people. But I digress.
My attention was recently drawn, by a friend and fellow PhD student on a train ride from Cambridge to London, to a beautiful example of art converging with science and the merged entity being thrown in the midst of the community’s quotidian life.
Alongside the train track runs a cycle track and footpath. And on that footpath have been laid some 10,000 colour stripes. These stripes represent the genetic code for a vital human gene: the BRCA2, which was sequenced at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge. BRCA2 (pronounced “Bracker Two”) is, as some of you may know, is a human gene, alterations or mutations in which may be involved in some cases of breast and ovarian cancer.
Here is a picture of the said pattern of BRCA2 made of coloured stripes, that I took from the moving train.
(c) Picture taken by me, on Nokia N95, February 2008: The BRCA2 gene map on the cycle path from Shelford to Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge
Art or science? What do you think?
Me? I think there is no separation between the two. Science is the art of explanation; art is the science of making more than the literal sense of the explanation in a broader, richer, more complex context.
Other genetics-related readings on this blog:
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
I, for one, am glad you have melded the either/or nature of your question, and agree with you there is and should be no separation. If you possibly consider art an aspect of notation of perceivable phenomena and the thoughts and emotions our perceptions give rise to, it is possible to have a more inclusive idea about what may be considered “art”. To me art and science are like two sides of a coin – impossible to separate, but distinct. I’d love to stroll along this “Gene Path”. It’s a marvellous concept. G
Hi Shefaly. Good to see you have a moment amidst all the tension of vivas to ponder interesting questions!
Have you come across Maurits Escher? His art involves mathematical nuance; even if one were ignorant of tesselations and group theory, one could still appreciate the intricacy and deep order of his work. Check out his gallery here.
@ SuburbanLife: Thanks for your note! I like the coin analogy – never the twain shall meet, but for that matter, never the twain shall separate either
@ Feanor: Great to see you back! I shall comment some time on your Thai massage anecdote (the best I have had was in Gleneagles!). Schade, the viva is not the immediately pressing problem, the weekly Cambridge commute is. This, too, shall pass, I think.
Thanks for the link! Yes, I am familiar with MC Escher’s work. I find his art mesmerising – and I do not mean it figuratively because a person with vertigo may find it too real a concern! I think non-linear physics renders itself beautifully to art
But I also always wonder where in my eclectic wall-adornments it shall sit. Always a puzzle – to cram walls full of life or to leave patches untouched, a bit like time in the day…
Feanor,Shefaly:
Great to find two admirers of Escher in the space of less than an hour! Which prompts me to ask: Either of you read a book compiled and edited by Clifton Fadiman, called “Fantasia Mathematica”?
@ Vivek: Thanks for your note. I have not read the book, but it looks interesting.
While on books: over the years, I have been slowly going through the prolific products of Martin Gardner’s creativity in maths and science and it almost does not matter where one starts, they make greatly entertaining readings (if one can say that about books about Science, Maths and Philosophy!).
As an aside and a contribution to trivia, Clifton F’s daughter Anne F has written a deliciously entertaining book on her love of books, called Ex Libris: Confessions of a common reader.
I like Suburban’s analogy too, two sides of a coin. I can think of the example of Palmistry. I am a palmist. And to be a good palmist you need to have the art of reading a palm but you need to apply the principles of reading in a scientific way otherwise palmistry deteriorates into superstition. But the art of reading is important, because the various principles at times seem to clash. Just seem to.
Anyway, I have probably given a wrong example.
So right! I wish more people would notice this, it would make more discussions more productive.
@Vivek: I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with the book you mention. Thanks for the tip! My original intro to Escher was via Douglas Hofstadter’s Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, which was a wide-ranging and scarily erudite journey through the theory of computation, music, logic, art. Perhaps you know it?
@Shefaly: yup, I read Ex-Libris a while ago. Not much from it sticks to the mind, however, except her discussion on how to arrange books on a shelf (alphabetical? by subject? should one bother?)
@Shefaly:
Never underestimate or sideline trivia
. Thanks for the tip about Anne Fadiman. I’ll look out for the book.
@Fëanor:
Happily, my introduction to Escher was more upfront (though not through originals). I stumnbled upon Hofstaedter’s opus mercifully late in life. After two half-hearted essays that took me not even through the first 50 or so pages, I gave up. I never did learn much about Godel, but have thoroughly enjoyed Escher and Bach since much earlier, not having had to view them through Doug’s glass, darkly.
The Fadiman book I mentioned has no direct bearing on Escher (or vice versa), but the stories in it, notably those drawing upon topological phenomena (particularly the Möbius Strip) call to mind Escher’s audacious subversion of cartesian space and gravity.
Re. methods of arranging books on a shelf, the one I find the most idio(syncra)tic is the one attributed by Agatha Christie to Hercule Poirot. I can’t help wondering whether this was due to her unfamiliarity with Dewey et al or a typically British contempt of the French (oops! Belgians).
Shefally,
Read your review of Anne F’s book. Delightful appetiser. Looking forward to the main course.
Science definitely inspires art, but it also goes the other way. Amazon.com has been inundating with recommendations that I purchase a book titled Proust Was a Neuroscientist, about artists discovering and demonstrating things in their art well in advance of scientists. As for myself, I relegate science to “that which can be measured and proved/disproved,” neither of which are defining characteristics of art. But there is no doubt that the two inspire one another!
I like both apples and oranges, and will sit out the philosophical conversation on whether they are the same or different etc. etc. which I find somewhat distracting from relishing the full taste of the two fruits. I think “worth” has probably summed it up for me in the comment above.
I don’t know. Science attempts to organize art, but they do overlap. To wit: fractal ferns are absolutely fascinating, as are other naturally occuring fractals, such as the nautilus shape. Amit had a post on fractals not long ago.
However, I think as far as leadership, the higher up you go, the more “art” is required. A supervisor has very concrete, measurable objectives to execute. A top-tier leader needs more: vision, an ability to inspire – this is more human relation art than science I think. It’s a non-quantifiable quality that inspires others to follow his/her lead, and trust….
The image you present is an artistic representation of a scientific concept. The problem with saying that everything is art is then, in reality, nothing is art. Science and technology are intimately related to the corporate imperative, and through PR and advertising a certain kind of “art” has been tied to the same imperative since the early 20th century. But none of this is really “art”, in the higher sense. In fact, it is antithetical to the generative, unpredictable creative force within humanity that art springs from.
I’m not saying that management is not a higher order practice involving the intuitive sense and a wide variety of skills. But it is not, in any way, shape or form, art. Once you play too fast and loose with concepts without a deeper appreciation of their meaning, you tread into dangerous territory…
Their are aspects of the virtuoso pursuit of science (esp. medicine) which have an artistic aura, but they are not art, per se.
Art steps out of the ordinary, turning a concept like a genetic code into a visual representation. But the science is not within the art — it is a source of inspiration.
Art, on the other hand, takes that inspiration and goes a step beyond.
Art is what art does.
Jackie,
//…naturally occuring fractals, such as the nautilus shape…//
A topic after my heart! Since you seem to be interested in this, I would strongly recommend “On Growth and Form” by D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. First published in 1917, in two volumes, by Cambridge University Press, it has since come out in many editions, including one brilliantly abridged into a single volume (also Cambridge) by Sir Peter Medawar — whose Nobel Prize winning work in immunology laid the foundation for transplants without the risk of rejection of foreign bodies. Sir Peter was also a brilliant litterateur. His “Pluto’s Republic” and “The Art of the Soluble” are an enduring delight to read and re-read.
Coming back to Thompson, his work precedes, by nearly 60 years, the coinage of the term “fractals” by Mandelbrot in 1975. But he is effectively writing about fractals. “On Growth and Form” is a must-read classic for anyone fascinated by the interrelationship between Math, Science, and Art as manifested in nature.
Necromancer,
//Once you play too fast and loose with concepts without a deeper appreciation of their meaning, you tread into dangerous territory…//
True. But are you suggesting that managers do — or must — “play too fast and loose” and therefore be debarred from being considered as artists?
Ouch. Late for the discussion. I wanted to talk about Escher, but someone seems to have already introduced him to th discussion.
Co-incidentally, I found another picture today- don’t know who created it- but it has a very Escher like feel to it. Here’s the link:
http://ffffound.com/image/fc8cc6079da29dc57e8a6e77775ac2e442309f59
I recommend “The Monumental Impulse” by George Hersey, and recommend that you look me up next time you’re in Cambridge…
great post and discussion….
i see it more as a continuum, rather than two discrete points…
this is like the god and science argument … why an either or….
@ Folks: What a fascinating discussion! If I did not know you better (within the limitations of the medium), I would see all book recommendations as a conspiracy to finish me off. My book backlog is now officially heavier than me, but I am glad to add some of these recommendations to my shopping basket on Amazon. Thank you!
@ Nita: Interesting example! I am never quite sure if there is any science in any future forecasting including astrology or palmistry. That said when I was 19, I met a partially blind face-reader – very weird situation but suffice it to say he had no idea who I was etc – who looked at my face and accurately said things about my past life, my family and many things about my future which turned out to be the case, despite my best efforts in many cases. I am still wondering about that.
@ Alice: Did you mean discussions with The Necromancer?
On a serious note, I would tend to agree. That said, this is a gathering of self-selected and, by all counts, highly intelligent people, so intellectual discussions can be had fairly easily. But en general, I have learnt to keep quiet more and more.
@ Feanor: Douglas Hofstadter’s books are by and large on the artificial boundaries of disciplines. I have not read Goedel, Escher, Bach either, but will do. Thanks.
Anne F’s book addresses quirky things about lining up books and mergers of libraries, as well as ‘being there’ reading and worrying about the use of h-is/er. In her quirks, I saw myself so the book is still on my list of favourites.
I really must see your library once. You can charge me if you like!
@ Vivek: Thanks. I am glad you liked the review. The book is a short and amusing read.
@ Worth: Thanks for your note. Yes, I agree both inspire each other, and in that sense, don’t you think the separation, the dichotomy, the almost antonymic implications of the words are all artificial?
@ Amit: That fence – or tree – that you are sitting on, is it apple or orange? Just curious
@ Jackie: Thanks for your note. I find it interesting that you refer to ferns and nautilus as ‘naturally occurring fractals’. By the same token, would you describe a marigold or a sunflower as a ‘naturally occurring Fibonacci sequence’?
The order was of course recognised later, much later after the species might have first emerged on earth. Was that science following art or art finding notation and wider appreciation due to science? What do you think?
In an earlier comment, I noted that much of non-linear physics – solitons, dendrites, cellular automata – renders itself beautifully to art. Fractals belong squarely along with these non-linear cousins of theirs, don’t you agree?
@ Necromancer: Thanks for your note. Knowing what you do – medical history – your view that “Science and technology are intimately related to the corporate imperative, and through PR and advertising a certain kind of “art” has been tied to the same imperative since the early 20th century” does not surprise me in the least.
That said, I am surprised Vivek did not react to PR and advertising being referred to as a “certain kind of art”!
I do however disagree that somehow science and technology are intimately related to the corporate imperative. Some of the most poetic scientific finds had nothing profit-oriented about them, except if one counts as a pursuit of profit the search for greater knowledge and understanding.
I am even more surprised to hear that you think of medical research as some kind of art. If there was a bare-faced pursuit of profit from research, medical research would be it!
As for the “higher sense”, who is the arbiter of that standard? It is a socially negotiated contract, isn’t it? After all, amongst true art connoisseurs, I would be sniggered at for admitting my fascination with impressionism. But add to it, my fascination with surrealism as well as emotive design, and many would not be sniggering any more.
You say “But the science is not within the art — it is a source of inspiration”. That it is, but do see what BRCA-2 really looks like. The science, in this case, is the art.
@ Ruhi: Thanks for the link. Did you mean another picture on that page instead of the one the link takes us to? Perhaps this one?
@ NotFromAroundHere: Thanks for your book recommendation! And now that we have discovered our relative locations in Cambridge, I look forward to seeing you soon.
@ Harini: Thanks for your note! I leave God out of everything except my swearing (which is rare in itself)… so I best leave that uncommented-upon but on the concept of a continuum, why not?
Shefaly:
//I am surprised Vivek did not react to PR and advertising being referred to as a “certain kind of art”!//
I am not very good at multitasking with simultaneous bush wars (or should that be flame wars?)
. Besides, as you remarked in another context, my views on (…) are well known. Ergo, you may assume they are immutable.
Also, the word “art” has many connotations (vide “The Artful Dodger”), and I think Necromancer deserves to be given the benefit of doubt, since he has used the very loaded qualifying phrase, “a certain kind of…”
Shefaly,
//…would you describe a marigold or a sunflower as a ‘naturally occurring Fibonacci sequence’…//
I don’t know about marigolds, but sunflowers certainly — not exactly a Fibonacci series, but more like a continuously varying sequence adhering to the Golden Section. Even more fascinating is the pattern of the scallops (or whatever they are called) on the pineapple skin.
Shefaly, a guava tree. With a bag of apples and oranges.
@Shefaly: I’m afraid you’ll be sorely disappointed were you to see my library, such as it is. I’ve been busy giving away most of my books, having realised I won’t very likely re-read many of them, that there are far too many books to read than can ever be accommodated on my shelves, and so piling onto every public library in sight is the only way forward
Now you might say you ought to charge me for taking a look at what remains!
@ Feanor: Next time a desire to give away books comes upon you, please, please let me know.
Shefaly, I do not think the separation between art and science is artificial – and as an aside, how the heck do you keep all of your directed responses to commentors straight?
Science has a “right” and “wrong” aspect to it, while art does not. In that sense, I would submit that God is artist, not scientist; creation is just that: a creation, neither right nor wrong. Since that time, we have spent thousands of years trying to figure out the rules and conditions that the creation follows, a search that I believe will ultimately be in vain – wouldn’t it have been nice to have been the one to not have had any rules to follow, to have just created (as all artists do) and say “there – it is what it is, like it or not!”
Worth,
Whether God is an artist or a scientist I don’t know (i.e. I am too lazy to apply my mind to the question). But notwithstanding Einstein’s assurance to the contrary, I do believe he is a gambler. That means he works within the framework of the laws of probability, which is statistics — nearly mathematics. So the true nature of God hinges on whether math is a science or an art.
PS: I suppose you know Niels Bohr’s famous rejoinder — “Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice.”
@ Worth: Thanks for the note. By the aside, did you mean how I keep them in the same sequence, or how do I keep them appropriate? Either way the more the comments, the more the time it takes to compose the reply, but I try my best
On a pedantic note, I would say science provides ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ explanations; societal and temporal context, as I otherwise note in my response to The Necromancer, adds the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (or even ‘popular’ or ‘unpopular’) to the mix.
For me, the separation remains artificial for many reasons. Amongst them, scientific epiphanies are so beautiful and inspired, that they are like what we call art. You sure remember the story about Kekule and the benzene ring? He apparently resolved the structure question in a dream! Can you imagine how Marie Curie must have felt when she first noticed radium’s radiation? In a poetic twist, she died probably due to the radiation she was exposed to, in her labs. No less tragic than Sylvia Plath, I’d say.
@ Vivek: On that note, Ian Stewart’s “Does God Play Dice?” would be worth recommending. An accessible book, considering it tries to explain chaos theory..
Thanks Shefaly,
I have seen reviews and also browsed through it in a bookshop (at the wrong time and place), and had made a mental note to pick it up. Thanks for the reminder.
Re. the last para of your response to Worth, you have put so elegantly what I wanted to say but didn’t because I could not articulate my thoughts too well (I try to follow another one of Bohr’s dicta — “Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think” — not always very successfully
)
@ Vivek: Since you invoke Bohr, another of his quotes stands out in this context:
“The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”
Shefaly,
I am familiar with this quotation (though I am astonished to find you using the transatlantic noun ‘quote’)
.
AFAIK the first part of that quotation should read, “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement…”. Not that it is such a profound issue
. I am just assuming that my source (can’t remember; ages ago) was authoritative. In reality Bohr may well have said it in Danish or German, and a number of different English translations could be floating around.
Wow, you guys. I feel out of my league intellectually here.
All I can say is that I have suffered an innate case of biophilia all my life. It has led me to live where I live, and always look under that rock. Not given to reflection on art so much, so I probably do play loose with the terminology. Art is anything I can’t find in a field guide or nail down in scientific mode.
That some ferns and the nautilus form are very pleasing, as are all the wonders I encounter out there, slime molds, rocks and all.
Nature doesn’t care for our sciences or art, it just creates the best forms for a given condition.
She creates her own symmetry, when needed.
Love the comments – Vivek, you are extremely articulate and I appreciate all your comments, as well as others’….Shefaly, you must feel like one proud momma
Feral-ly yours,
Jackie
No Shefaly, my link was correct. That is what I meant.
@ Jackie,
Shouldn’t biophilia be a great motivator of reflection on art? The way I see it, nature provokes and nurtures both science and art.
And contrary to what you seem to suggest, there does not have to be a nexus between biophilia and bibliophobia.
@ Shefaly,
Re. Jackie’s “poud momma” compliment, include me out
of the brood. Nothing personal of course 
.
Management is knowing what not to do. This list is un-ending, if you are working in a big company. You should know both scientific – what not to do list and also artistic – what not to do list; No exception there i guess
Destination Infinity.