A physicist speaks fondly of art and the stories we tell ourselves

Art and science aren't at odds with each other. They are just different ways of understanding the world, friends rather than foes. Many artists love science. Many scientists love the arts. 

The notion that scientists are cold-blooded creatures who only care about objective reality obviously is ridiculous. But some people believe in that ridiculous notion.

So that's why I'm sharing some passages from physicist Brian Greene's new book, "Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe."

Here's part of what Greene says about art in his book's Instinct and Creativity chapter.

Art may have had adaptive utility directly at the level of the individual, a perspective I find particularly compelling. The arts provide an arena unbounded by the strictures of flat-footed truth and everyday physical reality, allowing the mind to jump and twist and tumble as it explores all manner of imagined novelty.

A mind that assiduously sticks to what's true is a mind that explores a wholly limited realm of possibility. But a mind that becomes accustomed to freely crossing the boundary between what's real and what's imagined -- all the while keeping clear tabs on which is which -- is a mind that becomes adept at breaking the bonds of conventional thinking. Such a mind is primed for innovation and ingenuity.

...I'm partial to the view that sharpening ingenuity, exercising creativity, broadening perspective, and building cohesion provides a template for how the arts mattered to natural selection.

With this perspective the arts join language, story, myth, and religion as the means by which the human mind thinks symbolically, reasons counterfactually, imagines freely, and works collaboratively. Over the sweep of time, it is these capacities that have given rise to our culturally, scientifically, and technologically rich world.

All the same, even if your view of art's evolutionary role veers toward creamy desserts, we can surely agree that myriad forms of art have been a steady and valued presence throughout human history. Which means that inner lives and social exchanges have embraced modes of engagement that do not place a premium on factual information conveyed through language.

...The most arresting art can induce in us rarefied states of mind and body comparable to those reduced by our most affecting real-world encounters, similarly molding and enhancing our engagement with truth.

Discussion, analysis, and interpretation can further shape these experiences, but the most potent do not rely on a linguistic intermediary. Indeed, even for language-based arts, it is the imagery and sensations that, in the most moving experiences, leave the most lasting mark.

As elegantly described by poet Jane Hirshfield, "When a writer brings into language a new image that is fully right, what is knowable of existence expands."

Nobel laureate Saul Bellow speaks too to art's singular capacity for expanding the knowable: "Only art penetrates what pride, passion, intelligence and habit erect on all sides -- the seeming realities of this world. There is another reality, the genuine one, which we lose sight of. This other reality is always sending us hints, which without art, we can't receive."

And without that other reality, Bellow notes, channeling thoughts set down by Proust, existence is reduced to a "terminology for practical ends which we falsely call life."

Survival rests upon amassing information that accurately describes the world. And progress, in the conventional sense of increased control over our surroundings, requires a clear grasp of how these facts integrate into nature's workings. Such are the raw materials for fashioning practical ends.

They are the basis for what we label objective truth and often associate with scientific understanding. But however comprehensive such knowledge may be, it will always fall short of providing an exhaustive account of the human experience.

Artistic truth touches a distinct layer; it tells a higher-level story, one that in the words of Joseph Conrad "appeals to that part of our being which is not dependent on wisdom" and speaks instead to "our capacity for delight and wonder, to the sense of mystery surrounding our lives; to our sense of pity, and beauty, and pain; to the latent feeling of fellowship with all creation... in dreams, in joy, in sorrow, in aspirations, in illusions, in hope, in fear... which binds together all humanity -- the dead to the living and the living to the unborn."

...Make no mistake. We are all bags of particles -- both mind and body -- and the physical facts about the particles can fully address how they interact and behave. But such facts, the particulate narrative, shed only monochrome light on the richly colored stories of how we humans navigate the complex worlds of thought, perception, and emotion. 

And when our perceptions blend thought and emotion, when we feel thoughts as well as think them, our experience steps yet further beyond the bounds of mechanistic explanation. We gain access to worlds otherwise uncharted. As Proust emphasized, this is to be celebrated.

Only through art, he noted, can we enter the secret universe of another, the only journey in which we truly "fly from star to star," a journey that cannot be navigated by "direct and conscious methods."

Although focused on the arts, Proust's perspective resonates with my own long-held take on modern physics. "The only true voyage of discovery," he once said, "would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to see the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others."

For centuries, we physicists have relied on mathematics and experiment to reshape our eyes, to reveal layers of reality untouched by generations of the past, to allow us to see familiar landscapes in shocking new ways. 

With these tools, we have found that the strangest of lands have emerged by intently examining the very realms we have long inhabited. All the same, to acquire such knowledge and to utilize the power of science more generally, we must follow the unshakable directive to look past the peculiarities of how each of our distinct collections and cells takes in the world, and home in on objective qualities of reality.

For the rest, the all-too-human truths, our nested stories rely on art. As George Bernard Shaw put it, "You use a glass mirror to see your face, you use works of art to see your soul."

Comments

[Sonia]

Brian,

This is a particularly awesome post. My response is way too long to type out on my iPhone. I’m going to get my laptop and write about what struck me most—science provides the building blocks for art and art is what gives science wings.

[Sonia]

Sometimes it surprises me that people put Science and Art in different camps. Perhaps Scientists and Artists look at the world very differently in general. But I find people usually have a lot more in common with each other than they realize. Deeply ingrained concepts, prejudices, limited personal experience and just plain semantics often create unnecessary barriers. However, regardless of whether we identify ourselves as more scientifically minded or more artistically inclined, we still all experience the world through our five senses. (Six senses if you’re so inclined...)

What’s interesting about the science/art relationship is Art seems to represent desire and Science represents design. Some would argue otherwise, but I’ll explain...

With a little extra time on my hands (and needing something to cheer me up) I just started this “Favorite Things” journal. I have multiple tabs for different categories like Movies, Books, Music, Foods, Desserts, Snacks, Vacations, Natural Wonders, and on and on.

It’s such an energizing and relaxing and exciting project—an ongoing thing obviously. Just pick it up whenever I have time. But I’ve gained a few profound insights from this simple project. It reminds me how much there is to enjoy in life. Mostly they are small things. It gets me out of the daily checklist mindset and reminds me to make tasks more enjoyable (like why am I not listening to music right now or burning incense or candles). Why have I taken the art out of my daily to do’s. Artful living is a practice. It almost takes discipline to create a fun, enjoyable or relaxing environment. We’re so perfunctory in general.

The other thing I realized is that all of the things I like—other people’s creations are pretty much a big part of my own identity even though I played no role in the creation of most of the things I love (including my favorite people). Very little about me is really “me”. I identify with the things I love. I think that’s a natural human tendency.

The last and most profound part was that the list of favorite things didn’t include anything from the periodic table but none of my favorite things could have been made if those elements didn’t exist.

We say, “That’s my favorite flower—it has the most beautiful aroma!” (Stargazer Lily in my case) but we don’t list photosynthesis as a favorite thing. I guess what I’m getting at is we really do experience everything in color. We experience life in color. To me, color is everything as an artist. But behind the color are the waves and particles and all the biology involved in giving us the vision to see those colors.

Evolutionary changes in DNA is science being creative and adapting to changes in the environment. Nature contains myriads of analogies that we use to explain difficult concepts to others. Perhaps there is nothing new under the sun, but we couldn’t possibly see, do or experience every single thing under the sun even if we had a million lifetimes. That’s why we will always be able to enjoy the gifts of wonderment, discovery and mystery... and the Great Unknown.

[Jesse]

"With this perspective the arts join language, story, myth, and religion as the means by which the human mind thinks symbolically, reasons counterfactually, imagines freely, and works collaboratively. Over the sweep of time, it is these capacities that have given rise to our culturally, scientifically, and technologically rich world."

I'm glad the author mentions religion since I tend to think religious ceremonies and rituals are some of the most beautiful forms of art, and that they have contributed more to human development and culture than secular art. Immeasurably more.

My appreciation for the ornate beauty of a traditional Church, or the peace in the synchronized bowing of a group of Muslims has increased over the years even as my faith in any particular religion has decreased. One of the main attractions of Tibetan buddhism has always been the art, I suspect. Most of what we call secular humanism seems to come directly from Christianity as well, although that idea is disputed by those who seem to want to deny their own lack of originality and roots.

Many have argued that the 3 Abrahamic faiths historically contributed so much to art and science because they all believe in a God who made a world of laws which man can and must attempt to understand. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of truth to this belief. As we see today, the decline of religion corresponds to all sorts of really bad and destructive art, and a total mockery of the scientific process. Maybe the relationship is coincidental. Who knows.