art, aesthetics and physics: the contribution of physics to modern art

Leonardo

Art, Aesthetics and Physics: The Contribution of Physics to Modern ArtAuthor(s): Jean Jacques TrillatSource: Leonardo, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan., 1970), pp. 47-54Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1572051 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 21:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:41:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1572051?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Leonardo, Vol. 3, pp. 47-54. Pergamon Press 1970. Printed in Great Britain

ART, AESTHETICS AND PHYSICS:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF PHYSICS TO MODERN ART* Jean Jacques Trillat**

Abstract-Scientific research is in many ways similar to art, in the sense that like art it appeals to an aesthetic sense. But it differs also since 'art is me- science is us'.

New means of investigation with the electron microscope and X-rays enable one to explore invisible aspects of nature and to discover unsuspected forms of beauty which might be, and often are, subjects of inspiration to artists. Some examples are given in the article.

It is particularly interesting to compare hidden forms, revealed to us by the most advanced instruments, with the creations of non-figurative artists. The comparison sometimes brings out surprising convergences between scientific photography and the products of painters and architects. The convergences are often found in works of art earlier than in scientific photographs relating to matter, as if the artist found within himself, in his projection on canvas, the forms nature reveals when examined in the finest detail.

The author asks what could be the origin of the convergence: chance, knowledge of the progress in science or intuitive discovery of forms that reflect an aesthetic sense based on principles of efficiency and balance, as if there were in the artist a kind of subconscious foreknowledge enabling him to divine the architecture and harmony of matter ? The question is an open one.

I ONE OF the deepest wellsprings of human activity, and one of the oldest, is the aesthetic sense that drives man to create works of art as well as to make scientific discoveries; the need to create works of art no less than to dig down into and grasp the mysteries of nature. Both of these proceed in varying degrees from a desire for balance and harmony by means of which humanity seeks to rise above itself [1].

Most scientists have a highly developed artistic sense which drives them not only to marshal scientific ideas clearly and logically but to formulate them in a way that gives each recipient, as well as himself, aesthetic pleasure.

This need to accomplish aesthetic and disinterested work is found, I believe, in varying degrees both in the artist and in the scientist; but while the former tends to work in isolation, often for himself alone, the latter, on the contrary, requires support

* Based on a lecture given to the French Society of Aesthetics, Paris, France, on May 17, 1969.

** Professor of Electronic Microscopy and Diffraction, University of Paris, 1 Place Aristide Briand, 92-Bellevue, France. (Received March 24, 1969.)

from the sum of knowledge gained by other researchers. In other words, one could say that 'art is me-science is us'.

The aesthetic satisfaction of the artist crystallizes around his own work, which is self-sufficient. It suffices for him to look within himself, or to look at nature, to express it through the harmony of form, color or music, and thus accomplish a work of art-a projection of his inner self as Kandinski would have said. The scientist also brings to discovery a creative spirit that is entirely personal and, through this inner correspondence, it is his own projection on the plane of scientific construction that gives him his evolution-a projection also guided by an aesthetic sense. It is enough to remember in this connection the work of great contemporary scientists-Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Werner Heisenberg-to show the part played by their personality.

II

But, one may say, what broad relations could there be between the painter, the poet and the musician, on the one hand, and the modern scientist-at once mathematician, engineer and sometimes even

47 4



Jean Jacques Trillat

X., ;. . . .. . -.

* **-. . .;.

"'^r. '~i .. :Z . . . ...

'.

.'.. ,e:;

.

~.~ i:~ t.:- :;..

m ::,o ~ :

Fig. 1. Thermal attack on sodium chloride (electron microphotograph). (Photo: CNRS Laboratory, Bellevue, France.)

administrator-on the other? Whereas the former may listen only to his own inspiration, the other, on the contrary, often seems to be nailed down by contingency, if only by practical questions that ceaselessly pour in upon him and thus prevent his escaping towards the regions of pure speculation.

Nevertheless, there are common traits between the man of art and the man of science. In the first place, the scientist, like the artist, is driven by the same desire to create or discover something new and to do this the scientist, like the artist, must often abandon himself to his inspiration.

The mountain climber who after much effort climbs for the first time an inaccessible peak and sees a grandiose panorama unfold at his feet that no one has ever seen before, the explorer or astro- naut who starts off on the discovery of new regions and finds what none had even contemplated, are also very much akin to the researcher who, from his table or laboratory, lifts a small corner of the veil that hides nature. Each of them accomplishes a gratuitous and disinterested act; each of them can only accomplish his task at the cost of considerable effort; each of them finds his reward primarily in the aesthetic joy of discovery or creation.

The curiosity that drives the scientist to affirm his mastery over matter, also, and above all, enables him to discover the order and harmony reigning there. And this holds just as much for mathematics-whose beauty people discovered long ago-as for the experimental sciences such as physics and biology. The aesthetic sense of the scientist proceeds above all from a desire for

order, clarity and light. And this order, this clarity, this light that imbues him, are discovered in pro- fusion in the nature he explores, even though the latter seemingly offers him complete chaos. Hidden beauty, before invisible to our unaided eyes, is made visible by some of the most recent instruments and techniques.

III It is my intention here to give a few examples of

what instruments have revealed to us, after which I shall examine the close links that appear to relate the work of art with physical reality.

Take X-rays, which are invisible light consisting of radiation of very short wavelength. When they pass through crystals, they diffract into a large number of distinct beams which, if our eyes could see them, would appear to have various colors. If the beams strike a photographic plate, they impreg- nate it in the form of points or blobs whose geo- metrical configurations, reflecting the nature of the crystal, reveal the regularity and sense of harmony with which nature has grouped the atoms that make it up.

Another well-known application of X-rays is radiography (X-ray photography). Who could have foreseen that, used judiciously, this technique would reveal in minutest detail the interior grace of objects? These radiographs are genuine subjects of inspiration for painter and decorator.

One can go a step further in the compass of recent contributions of science: electron diffraction and microscopy are perhaps the best examples.

48



Art, Aesthetics and Physics

Fig. 2 (a). Giacomo Balla, 'Girl Running on Balcony', 1912. (b). Thin film of lead telluride (a semi-conductor) decorated by germs of crystallization.

(Photo: CNRS Laboratory, Bellevue, France.)

The work of Louis de Broglie is known beyond the realm of physics. His research led him, in a moment of inspiration, to establish a harmonious synthesis between the concepts of waves and of corpuscles, thus bridging the gap between the old theory of Fresnel's light waves and the new theory of the discontinuous or quanta. It is a monument to the human spirit that might have been sufficient unto itself, had not the unquiet minds of physicists sought to derive even further consequences. Of these I shall discuss only two: electron diffraction and, especially, the electron microscope.

Electron diffraction (directly derived from wave mechanics) has certain links with X-ray diffraction

but it extends its field of investigation even further into matter in its crystal state. If one sends a fine pencil of electrons through a thin crystal layer, often the most striking figures that a geometer could ever trace appear on the fluorescent screen. Sometimes it is circles that seem wrought by an ideal compass, sometimes it is points regularly spaced in squares, rectangles, lozenges and hexagons. The circles and points are derived from the reconstitution of electron waves re-emitted by billions of atoms struck by the incident beam, revealing to us what no eye could ever have suspected, namely the prodigious regularity of arrangement of the constituent atoms or molecules of crystalline matter.

49




inhib

Fig. 3 (a). Wols, Drawing, 1947. (b). Filaments of silica. (Photo: St-Gobain Research Centre, France.)

IV Electron microscopy, because of the smallness of

the wavelengths associated with electrons in motion, has considerably extended the possibilities of the optical microscope and increased prodigiously its capability to discern two points separated by a distance of 1 or 2 millionths of a millimeter, where formerly one was limited to about a thousandth of a millimeter. This gain by a factor of a thousand in separating power is a new window opened on the hidden structure of matter, which now shows us a new and beautiful aspect of nature. Consider Fig. 1 that depicts heat attacking rock salt; it makes one

think of a heap of pyramids or, with a little more imagination, of mountain peaks.

I could give many other examples that strike one by their analogy between certain electron microphotographs and abstract paintings. It is interesting in this connection to reproduce a few photographs taken with electron microscopes side by side with 'correspondences' I have found with the abstract works of artists. Then it will be possible to attempt to identify a philosophy of resemblance which, in my opinion, raises certain problems. For as Paul Klee said: 'The essential tendency of modern art is not to reproduce the visible but to make it visible'.

50




4H

Fig. 4 (a). Francis Picabia, 'Rubber', 1909. (b). Thin sliver of mica after ion bombardment (extinction fringes and colors). (Photo:

CNRS Laboratory, Bellevue, France.)

Figure 2(a) is a part of a painting by Giacomo Balla, 'Girl Running on a Balcony', done in 1913. Figure 2(b) is an electron microphotograph of a thin film of lead tellurium (a semi-conductor) with its germs of crystallization. The painter's technique, somewhat akin to that of Seurat, is disturbingly similar to nature's technique. (It is not possible in this article to give a detailed interpretation of the electron microphotographs.)

Figure 3(a) is a painting made in 1909 by Picabia, entitled 'Rubber', motifs resembling those of the electron microphotograph in Fig. 3(b) which, magnified 20,000 times, depicts a thin sliver of mica subjected to ion bombardment, with extinction fringes and contours.

Figure 4(a) shows a drawing by Wols which is almost identical with the electron microphotograph of filaments of silica shown in Fig. 4(b). Lastly, in another order of ideas, Fig. 5(a) is a view of New York skyscrapers, showing an architecture similar to that of Fig. 5(b), depicting a thin film obtained by cleavage of a semi-conductor (niobium telluride) in which perfectly regular systems of micromacles (twinnings) appear.

V What conclusions can be drawn from such

comparisons ? In the first place, there appears to be a kind of

convergence between a work of art of a painter and

51

A. t




Fig. 5 (a). Photograph of New York skyscrapers. (b). Niobium telluride with micromacle systems (twin crystals). (Photo: CNRS Laboratory,

Bellevue, France.)

52



Fig. 6. Thin sliver of semi-conductor seen under polarized light.




the reality revealed to us by the electron microscope, so that one could hold that abstract art is not as 'abstract' as some would have us believe.

Three hypotheses come to my mind about the convergences-I could almost say superpositions- between certain photographs taken by physicists and certain paintings.

The first contends that the artist has been aware of recent work in physics, that he has been in contact with physicists and has sought his inspiration in photographs shown to him. This no doubt is true in certain instances but I must stress the fact that most of the coincidences I have found relate to works made a great deal earlier than the invention of the electron microscope [2].

Still, according to this first hypothesis, one could affirm that the real creators of abstract painting were not the painters of the twentieth century but the optical physicists of the seventeenth and of those that came after them. More reasonably one could hold, however, that if modern science has not directly engendered modern art, it has made it, as it were, decent and respectable-has justified it.

Science during the last 150 years has profoundly modified our vision of the universe. True, for the layman as for the artist, even when one is totally ignorant of the profound significance of scientific pictures, we have all been more or less deeply struck by them. Paul Klee said: 'Just a glance in a microscope reveals things that would seem fantastic if we had come across them without prior warning'. The first hypothesis regarding inspiration to be found in the scientific domain cannot therefore be excluded.

The second hypothesis would be that the coincidences are due to pure chance. Save for a few exceptions, I believe this hypothesis must be rejected.

The third hypothesis appeals to something more basic. With Kandinski one could say that, impelled by an inner necessity, the painter projects his state of mind on canvas and that often the forms his imagination has created resemble those that the scientist independently discovers with instruments. This is the case with some paintings (of which I have given a few examples) antedating electron microscopy. In other words, the painter uncon- sciously rediscovers forms that nature has created -lovely forms which perhaps are not unlimited.

But an objection immediately occurs to one, that is, that the pictures illustrating this article are not in color. Electron microphotographs are not pro- duced in color, whereas painting, by definition,

makes use of color-putting aside other artistic techniques like drawing and engraving, in which the opposition of black and white suffices. The answer is that the colors in the black and white reproductions of the paintings are inserted, as it were, in the forms. Hence my comments concern only the forms.

There are techniques of physics that give color photographs. Well-known examples are light interference and light diffraction, and polarized light microscopy. A good example is shown in Fig. 6. (The photograph shows a sliver of a semi- conductor analysed under polarized light.)

VI

The question arises whether aesthetic forms are unlimited. This is improbable, since they correspond to a certain need for balance. The strangest part of it is that nature furnishes us, at the sub- microscopic scale, forms that are satisfying to the eye.

Does this mean that all kinds of forms may exist in nature ? Certainly not, but it seems as if amongst the innumerable constructions it is able to fashion, nature had a preference for the most beautiful- somewhat as in evolution where the billions of possible combinations with the genetic code lead to the elimination of individuals (in the wide sense of the term) that are not capable of subsisting.

One may ask, too: does the aesthetic sense, sub- jective as it is, correspond to physical or biological reality based on the principle of balance and efficiency ?

These ideas are certainly open to criticism. One might say, with Etienne Souriau, that 'the need that the artist has today to initiate things of a hitherto unknown appearance is in harmony with the fore- warning of a new universe' [3]. Or one might say with Emile Zola: 'Art is nature through a tem- perament'.

To sum up, the aesthetic sense that drives the physicist working on the structure of matter is akin to the aesthetic sense that drives the artist to create similar forms, as if there were within him a kind of subconscious foreknowledge that enables him to divine the architecture and harmony of matter. Although my aim has been to deal with the relations between aesthetics, art and physics, it has also been to show the peculiar convergence between certain forms in art and certain hidden forms in nature that have been made visible by scientific techniques.

REFERENCES

1. J. J. Trillat, Sentiment esthetique et recherche scientifique, Ann. Scient., Universite de Besan?on 4, 1 (1951-1952).

2. G. Delbart, L'art abstrait est toujours figuratif, Techniques et civilisations 1, No. 5 (1956). 3. E. Souriau, L'esthetique et l'artiste contemporain, Leonardo 1, 63 (1968).

53




Art, esthetique et physique: I'apport de la physique dans l'art moderne

Resume-La recherche scientifique s'apparente par bien des c6tes a l'art, en ce sens qu'elle fait appel comme lui au sentiment esthetique: mais elle en differe aussi car 'l'art c'est moi-la science, c'est nous'.

Les nouveaux moyens d'investigation comme le microscope electronique et les rayons-X permettent d'explorer des regions invisibles et d'y decouvrir des formes insoupqonnees et souvent d'une beaute, qui pourraient etre-et qui sont parfois-des sujets d'inspiration pour l'artiste. Quelques exemples sont donnes dans cet article.

I1 est particulierement interessant de comparer ces formes cachees, devoilees par les instruments les plus perfectionnes, avec les creations de nombreux artistes non- figuratifs. Cette comparaison fait apparaitre parfois des convergences etonnantes entre la photographie scientifique et la production du peintre ou de l'architecte; ces convergences sont souvent observees dans des ceuvres artistiques anterieures a la decouverte des recents moyens d'investigation de la matiere, comme si l'artiste decouvrait en lui, dans sa projection sur la toile, les formes offertes par la nature lorsqu'on l'examine dans ses plus fins details.

Quelle est l'origine de cette convergence? Hasard, connaissance des progres de la science, ou decouverte intuitive de formes qui correspondent a un sentiment esthetique base sur un principe d'efficience et d'equilibre, comme s'il y avait dans l'artiste une sorte de prescience subconsciente qui lui fait deviner l'architecture et l'harmonie de la matiere ? La question reste ouverte.

54



art, aesthetics and physics: the contribution of physics to modern art

Documents