2 January 2014

‘Abstract Art Digs Deeper’

‘Abstract Art Digs Deeper’ is the title of this blog as I set about investigating the interface between art and archaeology.  So  what does ‘interface’ mean?

So far, the definitions I have found go like this:- a surface forming a common boundary between adjacent regions; a point at which independent systems or diverse groups interact; the area shared by two or more fields of study; an interconnection between systems, equipment, concepts or people.

In other words, my interest is in locating the intersecting ground between these two disciplines and exploring their shared features.  Why?  Because I think that there is a lot in common between the artist and the archaeologist.


Initially this sounds a little unlikely as the artist and the scientist are considered by contemporary decision makers to be mutually exclusive.  Why should this be the case?  There have certainly been plenty of people in the past who have managed to embrace both art and science, and make valuable contributions to both.  Leonardo da Vinci would be a good case in point.  A brief glance at his notebooks will show how he did not separate one area of study from another, or desist from pursuing an interest because it was not ‘arty’ enough.  Instead he seemed to see all areas of study as worthy of his attention.  The practical problems he encountered in the making of a painting were on the same level as the practical problems he sought to solve in connection with designing machinery to enable human flight.  And both his art and his science relied on acute observation of facts and details.

thCAB7I9G1                             th[11]

Could it be that our education system has had a part to play in the current perceptions that we have?  Are we not actively encouraged to think that it is not possible for one person to be both a scientist and an artist?  Could it be argued that our children are expected to define themselves as either art-based or science-based at far too early a point in their education?  Wouldn’t it lead to a richer experience of education, and a richer vein of future achievement for society to mine, if we encouraged young people to achieve competence in both sectors, pursue both strands where possible, rather than force a decision towards one or the other?

Perhaps the problem is that we are taught that art is to do with imagination, whereas science is to do with facts.  Yet scientists need imagination as part of their professional toolkits, and this goes for archaeologists in particular.  Without imagination, new vaccines would never be found, new areas of technology never investigated, new planets never discovered, and many of the myriad of mysteries that science inevitably throws up would never be explained.  As for archaeologists, we would know nothing about our deep human past if informed imagination had not been exercised by those who excavated and analysed ancient and prehistoric sites.  Imagination is not just the preserve of the arts.

And imagination is not the only ingredient that goes into making art.  Most artists research before they make.  Whether it’s to do with ancient history, social history, art history, contemporary culture, or the physical and chemical properties of materials and supports, research allows the artist to do what they do as well as they can.  Research involving the discovering of facts is also important in the refuelling of the imagination, in the overcoming of boundaries, in the opening up of new areas of interest, in the bringing together of apparently divergent subject areas, all of which are important to the artist.

Going back to Leonardo, Michael White’s book ‘Leonardo, the First Scientist’ closes with a very appropriate passage.

“As I have emphasised, I believe Leonardo was certainly a scientist, but to accept this one must allow for a broader interpretation of what the word ‘science’ means, and many are unwilling to do so.  To me, science is exploration, it is questioning, it is the application of imagination, it is analysis. …  What he lacked in mathematical skills he made up for with his genius as an artist.  For although mathematics is a tool for the scientist and used to manipulate information, it is also employed as a means to express ideas, to portray concepts, to illustrate principles.’ (p 329)


I must admit that my mathematical prowess leaves much to be desired, but if science is exploring and questioning and analysing, then there is more of the scientist in me than I’d realised!

What do you, the scientist, think?  Do you perceive the use of imagination in your work?  Or are you more inclined to think that art and science are completely different, and should remain at opposite ends of the spectrum?  Or are you an archaeologist, and feel that your work is not only science, but allows for more ‘art’ skills, techniques and perceptions?  I’d love to have your response!


4 thoughts on “2 January 2014

  1. hi, you artist/scientist/blogger-type! well done, you! really. I know all this has been bubbling up in you and I hope you get some of the dialogue you seek. And just a really good job getting a post on your blog, exploring what your eventual thesis will build upon! I really like the intro — it’s conversational and engaging and I like the concept of ‘interface’.

    sorry I faded out on you the other day when you were sharing your passion about your work. it wasn’t you or the topic, just been doing that lately. apparently at least once while driving–rats!

    Praise report: getting cars sorted — regaining peace. 

    you really are an important friend to me and I’m glad you have wished to stay somewhat connected while you are away.

    hugs,  Kimberlee    Mobile 07906 419 918 Barbara Rainey — One of my favorite verses is Isaiah 33:6: “And he will be the stability of your times, abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge.”  No matter the current national or world crisis, and though our eyes constantly look for the outward to satisfy, to fill us, to bring us joy, it is only found within.  David said, “Restore to me the joy of your salvation” (Psalm 51:12). He knew the source was in God alone.

    >________________________________ > From: Abstract Art Digs Deeper >To: writekimberlee@yahoo.com >Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 17:51 >Subject: [New post] 2 January 2014 > > > > WordPress.com >carmenmills54 posted: “‘Abstract Art Digs Deeper’ ‘Abstract Art Digs Deeper’ is the title of this blog as I set about investigating the interface between art and archaeology.  So  what does ‘interface’ mean? So far, the definitions I have found go like this:- a surface formin” >

  2. Not sure how much I can contribute to the debate about the art/science divide or is it connection, but for me as an artist I test hypotheses all the time, what if? is my mantra. Doesn’t science do the same too? The difference is the subjectivity of success in creative endeavours, it may work for me and I’m thrilled – but another viewer might think its inaccessible and therefore rubbish. In science/maths success isn’t subjective, it has to stack up time and again and to all-comers. Well done Carmen on starting this topic. Your Aber dabber do chum, Alizarin Crimson !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s