Art inspired by science

Over the years I have come across a number of ways that art and science have come together effectively, often in a way that makes science more accessible. Sometimes this involves the explicit illustration of scientific principles, as in Adam Dant's entertaining How it All Works, for which I had the pleasure of coming up with the scientific principles to be covered by his delightful illustrations (small version of one of Adam's images alongside, but you have to see them full size to appreciate their genius).

I've recently come across a project by artist Lewis Andrews, who took a book a month for a year and used each as the inspiration for a series of artworks. Two of my books were included in the project: Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and Gravitational Waves.

You can see Lewis's project Scientia in full on its web page. But I can reproduce two of the striking images here.

Halo IV

One of a series of digitally enhanced drawings inspired by Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Lewis: 'The "Halo" series of digitally enhanced drawings touch upon the theorized properties of dark matter and its ability to hold galaxy clusters within a series of threads, filaments, and halo-like shapes. Zooming out, if you could visualize this architecture of our universe, it would appear to almost be a vast cosmic web.'

Kilonova IV

One of a series of Giclee prints on paper inspired by Gravitational Waves. Lewis: 'Kilonova focuses on the death of two already dead stars. Neutron Stars are the left-over corpses of supergiant stars that went supernova. Neutron stars are, as a result, full of extremes. A sugar cube-sized piece of Neutron Star would weigh roughly a billion tons. Over time, Neutron Stars may stray too close to each other and begin a death spiral until they collide. When this happens, another massive explosion is generated called a Kilonova.'

I've always been wary of science-art collaborations as they can feel like a failed attempt to paste over the cracks of C. P. Snow's Two Cultures divide (see my article defending science fiction for some background on that). But sometimes they work well, and I think, each in their own very different way, this is true of both Adam and Lewis's work.

Images © Lewis Andrews and Adam Dant

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog