George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Bill Clinton, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.
Longfellow, Tennyson, Eliot, Beckett.
Georgia O'Keefe, Martha Graham, Leonard Bernstein, Miro, Calder.
Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, Graham Bell.
The list of esteemed American fellows (and honorary foreign-born fellows) of this Academy is long and impressive, not just because the names span 4 centuries and their work is well known, but because they encompass politics and philosophy, art and literature, science and math. What connects them all? The deepness of their thought and their contributions to society.
Located just outside of Boston, MA is the AAAS (not to be confused with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who publish the esteemed journal Science), but the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (http://www.amacad.org/) - a group predating the end of the revolutionary war, and founded by a group of "scholar-patriots" including John Adams and Samuel Adams.
I attended a week-long Harvard course on clinical and translation science there recently, and experienced a renewed sense of inspiration as I read the various letters of acceptance (from the fellows) that decorated the walls: handwritten like Calder and Homer; western union from MLK jr; senate letters from JFK and Ted Kennedy; pots and pans stationary from Julia Child. Some letters were decorated with hand-drawn art, others were letterhead from important research universities.
We're used to the important contributions of art or science being recognized by their respective societies: the American Academy of Arts and Letters (http://www.artsandletters.org/) vs. The National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org). The Nobel Prize knows better to honor the arts AND sciences together (Nobel prizes for Chemistry or Literature, for example). I certainly find it appropriate for the creation of the arts and the contribution of scientific research to be honored side by side. They certainly intersect in our society in countless ways, but just to mention a few:
++ science of art
- the science of creating art: pigments, photographic technology, the chemistry of pottery glazes, and much more
- the biology of how we view and interpret art (for a good example, see Margaret Livingstone's work in this area, including her book Vision and Art: the Biology of Seeing and at http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/faculty/livingstone.html )
++art of or about science
- many bodies honor the beauty and art found in photomicrographs (or the photos captured through a microscope); others are exhibits centered around the art and science theme; some found here:
- art of science competition at Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~artofsci/gallery/
- http://www.microscopyu.com/smallworld/gallery/
- http://artsci.uchsc.edu/gallery/index.html
- A database of the type of art you might find in textbooks: http://ebsco.smartimagebase.com/smartindex.php?
- Many many others - I'll try to keep my Art and Science links up to date!
++collaborations and intersections:
- view this great article by Seed Magazine about science and art: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_future_of_science_is_art/
- and learn more about this society for art and science co-founded by Stephen Jay Gould: http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/about.php
But aside from these examples, the Academy of Arts and Sciences is more interested in the contributions of those working in the art and science fields, how their ideas, discoveries and innovations affect society in a positive way.
From the website: In the words of the Academy's charter, enacted in 1780, the "end and design of the institution is...to cultivate every art and science which may tend to advance the interest, honour, dignity, and happiness of a free, independent, and virtuous people."
One contribution of the Academy is their journal, Dædalus, an intellectual publication that pulls from the arts and sciences to obtain "multidisciplinary analyses of compelling contemporary issues". A sampling of their top articles are available for free, here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=daed
I'll leave you with one more tidbit of nerdy insight, a recent article comparing of all things, the gestation periods for carrying out the work required for those big ideas - the kind had by artists and scientists alike!
Med Hypotheses. 2009 Oct 12. [Epub ahead of print]
On gestation periods of creative work: An interface of Doig's art and science.
Head of the Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, University of Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49 221 4784450; fax: +49 221 4785119.
This article is meant for, but not confined to, younger scientists who may have a series of ideas, hypotheses and projects - be they small or big - and might grapple with the objective to pursue and complete at least some, and preferably most, work in due course. And yet, the very generation, development and completion of numerous projects takes gestation periods which can be long and painful. Importantly, this simple but important truth is valid for any creative process, be it in the sciences or in the arts. With reference to luminaries like Max Perutz and George Wald, more general interfaces between science and the arts are identified. With reference to how some of Peter Doig's paintings evolve over long times and to how John Eccles and Isaac Newton worked, extended gestation periods as a key similarity of creative work by both artists and scientists are exemplified and vindicated. It is concluded that long gestation periods of creative work should be viewed as the expectation rather than the exception. Importantly, the evolutionary and somewhat intuitive commitment to several projects at the same, and often extended, periods of time can be a recipe for revolutionary results fostered by the required variation and diversity of thinking and cross-fertilization of - seemingly - unrelated themes and fields.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Steinberg
doctorwascher
Paul Hinrichs
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Cary Tennis
Dave Cullen
Salon.com
Comments
It's really quite apparent to anyone who pays attention that these destroyers of all things good will be the death of all of us.
Let us look at some of those names you mentioned.
George Washington? Used human teeth in his dentures...slave teeth.
Ben Franklin? Well known womanizer and kite flyer, and we know that that sort of activity leads to!
Bill Clinton? Slick willy? Seriously? Let's all chant it together....Monica..monica..monica..
MLK - Was an openly confessed cat owner. Also owned a toaster.
Nelson Mandela - Come ON, man, he was imprisioned for years for godsakes...what kind of great guy could he be if he was locked up all that time?
Longfellow - He was a notorious gambler and was known to duel with drunkards. Hence the historical fact that Longfellow never lost a duel.
Tennyson - hated children. Use to scare them out of his yard in his old age.
Eliot - Communist.
Beckett - worst captain of the enterprise ever. Hands down. We're referring to Sam Beckett, of Quantum Leap, of course.
Darwin - Obviously the most mistaken man in history. Evolution is a farce, we all know that exogenesis and guided morphological pre-programming by a sentient extraterrestrial species is repsonsible for the so call 'effects' of evolution.
Bohr - a very argumentative stiff, hated David Bohm and to this day refuses to have coffee with me.
Oh and Rated.
T.S. Eliot though, he really was a communist. Hell of a writer though.
@ Aliquot - "Down with toasters" is the first thing you've said in the history of you saying things, that I totally agree with hands down. Big hugs bro!