Representation, Metaphors, and Mutual Influences: A Reflection on 49 Pieces of Writing on Science and the Arts

This is the 50th article on the links between science and the arts published in the Clinical Chemistry since January 2011. It all started as a series designed to celebrate the International Year of Chemistry, and subsequently evolved into the Science in the Arts series. Here I try to reflect on a pattern that has emerged in the preceding 49 pieces of writing (Fig. 1).Fig. 1. Marek H. Dominiczak. Art and Science note 02. Ink and Aquamarkers on Bristol board, 25 x 18 cm.Let us recall the core definitions first. The Oxford Dictionaries define science as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (1). Art, on the other hand, is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” (2). The third definition is that of an institution; Francis Fukuyama, writing about political institutions in his newest book, defined it as a “persistent pattern of behaviour” (3).Science is primarily based on individual endeavor, greatly enhanced by institutions, and physically centered in certain types of space. The nature of links between science and the arts seems to fall into three categories: representation, symbols and metaphors, and mutual influence on practice.Firstly, representation. Historically, the simplest form of artistic representation in relation to science has been portraiture: the recording of personalities of eminent individuals. An interesting aspect here is that many portraits take a “scholar in his study” form, present in painting since the Renaissance (4). In such portraits, looking at the surrounding space is particularly informative. With time, the nature of the …