Science and art rule the world. Without them the world, especially human life, would be not just a duller place. It would not function. A year ago when I started writing about art and science it was hard to find popular work on the subject. Search now and you will find abundant material. But I'm a bit worried about where that effort is headed.
There is so much popular enthusiasm for linking, combining, and conflating art and science. There's nothing wrong with current concepts about art-as-science or science-as-art. But I sense the lack of a philosophical basis for these activities. Science isn't art nor is art science, but they do have many commonalities, especially in the way they approach problems. This idea has been wonderfully elucidated at the MIT List Center exhibit, "Man in the Holocene," which runs for a couple more weeks. Thank you Julia for encouraging me to go and see it!
Without the conceptual basis laid down in that exhibit, in year or two when the excitement has subsided I'm afraid we'll be right back where we started, an intellectual paradigm where science and art are seen as polar opposites, neither informing the other.
So many people right now are confusing art and science. A beautiful scientific image, a sumptuous map, or a brightly colored microphotograph do not, in my opinion, comprise a work of art. Nor do artists' works depicting nature or what they perceive as scientific phenomena actually inform science. Instead of these approaches, I have been exploring subjects related to the "Holocene" exhibit. How do we circumscribe a set of approaches that are common to both art and science? I think I am getting close in what I describe broadly as an "aesthetic" approach, something you can read in my recent previous posts.
Can we take the aesthetic approach further and unlock the way it works in a scientific context? I think we can.
Consider this. Composition, volume, proportion, and dynamics are abstract signals, properties within which we make and critique art. They are combined to create an aesthetic, which makes “sense” out of random signals, and through which we can understand the work of an artist. They hold the code that is translated into an aesthetic, which leads to an interpretation of reality. These signals are the carriers of meaning by which we organize abstract perceptions into articulated concepts, into a system of understanding. They do not have "meaning" on their own but combined and translated they can be transduced into artistic meaning.
From a scientific standpoint these carriers of meaning are like cellular ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA delivers an abstract code (a sequence of nucleotides) to a submicroscopic body called the ribosome, where the code is translated into protein. The nucleotide sequence by itself does not have meaning. It has no function other than conveying a message. Only when the message is translated by the ribosome into a protein does it "make sense."
Proteins subsequently “make sense” of cellular activities by mediating all of the biochemical behaviors of the cell. Certain proteins act as pumps for other molecules, using energy to transport substances from one part of the cell to another. Other proteins behave as gatekeepers, allowing certain things into a cellular space and keeping others out. Proteins also function as electron transmitters, guiding the process of energy utilization (metabolism) in the cellular environment. Many proteins are classified as enzymes. In their role as enzymes, proteins are the "chemists" of the cell. They add to, take away from, or change the shape of other molecules.
To take the aesthetic-protein analogy further, these same abstract properties of composition, proportion, volume, and dynamics determine protein function. Proteins need to be a certain shape (conformation) in order to function. Protein conformation, folding, and affinities for other molecules are the basis of protein function similar to the way in which aesthetic principles determine to "function" or meaning of a work of art. Art has to have guiding principles of aesthetics. In the same way, proteins are defined by their ability to behave in certain specific ways. If proteins did not possess these characteristics they could not function in the cellular environment.
I would be interested to hear what you think about these ideas, and whether they have introduced you to a new way of thinking about art and science.
Proteins mediate cellular environments. They do so by being "gate keepers" in the function of transportation (integral proteins). Integral proteins allow substances in and out of cellular compartments and/or pump substances in and out of cellular compartments. Proteins are being integrated into membranes. Proteins are also "chemists" and deal with enzymes. Enzymes alter other molecules by either adding, subtracting, or changing the conformation and shape that ultimately changes the function of the protein.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment in a very strong way. Without proteins, signals could not be sent for cellular communication and items within the cell could not move around. Proteins can pump solutes in and out of molecules changing the cellular environment.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate their cell environment by acting as gatekeepers and chemists. Integral proteins are known as gatekeepers, which allow substances to be pumped in and out of cellular compartments. Gatekeepers are embedded into the phospholipid bilayer membrane. Enzymes are known as chemists because enzymes alter other molecules by adding, subtracting, and/or changing conformation.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment, and act aesthetically with the cell. Aesthetically, they are gate keepers of the cell. Each protein has a specific function in the cell and this dynamic creates a formula. Proteins work hard to allow substances to travel through the cell, so they basically are needed to keep the cell stable.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate cellular functions by being hypothetical "chemists" and "gatekeepers." The "chemist" function pertains to enzymes, which alter other molecules by adding/subtracting/changing their conformation. The "gatekeeper" function applies to the integral proteins which allow substances in and out of cellular compartments, or use energy to pump substances in and out.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment. They are the gatekeepers of the cell by acting as a transport (allowing substances in and out of the cell), they act as a pump to push substances in and out of the cellular compartments, and they help energy production.
ReplyDeleteProteins have a huge impact on the cellular environment as a mediator; not only as the gatekeepers of the cell (which I noticed was mentioned many times above), but also, the proteins structure and shape (often determined by the bonds) have a huge impact. Certain protein changes can cause mutation and denaturization which both have their individual impacts on the cell.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment by regulating specific processes within the cell. They act as pumps, gatekeepers, and also guide the process of energy utilization. They serve to break down the larger processes that occur within the cell.
ReplyDeleteI always thought of proteins as the doors to the cells. In a broader biological world, when an organism sees a change in its surrounding, it ultimately depends on millions of cells to change all together, so imagine how many proteins must operate to "adapt." Not to mention the regulatory responses that proteins normally do, like nervous impulses and energy production.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the entire cell. They are able to allow or reject substances entering the cell through passive and active transport. Through their transportation of substances, they give the cell what it needs to function properly.
ReplyDeleteProteins have two main function as "Gate keepers" and "Chemists". The former acts as a security system outside the cell that allows certain substance to flow in and out of the cell. This happens through three types of transport: Active, Passive, and facilitative. The later refers the enzymes which add and subtract molecules as well as change the conformation of the molecules.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in lecture, proteins act as either "Chemists" or "Gatekeepers". As Gatekeepers, integral proteins (integrated into the phospholipid bilayer) act as a pump and transport substances in and out of the cellular compartments. As "Chemists" proteins are enzymes and alter the conformation of the molecules (add or subtract from the molecules). Furthermore (as mentioned in the blogpost), proteins mediate cell environment through their role as electron transmitters, in which they guide cellular metabolism.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment by acting as both a "gatekeeper" and "chemist". Proteins allow for substances to be transported, or pumped in or out of cellular compartments. When acting in this way they are called upon as the "gatekeeper", whereas they act as a "chemist" when they alter the conformation, by adding or subtracting of molecule.
ReplyDeleteProteins act as the "gatekeepers" of the cell in mediating substances that go in and out of the cell. Enzymes are a type of protein that mediate the chemical reactions within the cell. Proteins also involved in the structural support of the cell.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Kanellos
Proteins can be seen as the middlemen of all chemical reactions. As mentioned in lecture, one task of proteins is that of gatekeeper. Gatekeeper proteins assist in the transfer of other proteins through the bilayer while also preventing the movement newly synthesized proteins. Proteins, as enzymes, or chemists, facilitate the chemical processes that are necessary parts of sustaining life and developing other molecules.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate cellular function by acting as “gatekeepers” or “chemists.” The “gatekeeping” proteins are integral and involved in transport. These proteins mediate the cellular environment by allowing substances to enter and exit the cell through active transport (requiring energy), and passive or facilitated transport (requiring no energy). The proteins associated with “chemists” are enzymes. Enzymes mediate the cell by altering other molecule by changing their shape or function. Proteins are used economically in the cell, recycled, and have the ability to move around the cell as needed. These three functions allow the protein to mediate the cellular environment to its full efficiency.
ReplyDeleteIsabel Vera
DeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment in a couple ways. First, they act as "gatekeepers" by transporting things through the cell. This transportation can be done in three ways: active, which requires energy, passive, or facilitative, both of which do not require energy. Enzymes are a type of protein that act as the "chemist" and are another way proteins mediate cellular environments. Enzymes alter the shape and therefore the function of a molecule.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment by being protecting in integral proteins (which is why they're called gate keepers) as they are being transported. Integral proteins are able to flow in and out of cellular compartments and eventually make their way into membranes. Enzymes then change the shape thus changing the function of the molecule.
ReplyDeleteProteins act in many different ways in the cellular environment. They allow substances in and out of the cell, and the also use energy to pump substances across the phospholipid bilayer membrane of the cell, keeping a relative balance of solute-water concentration on both sides of the membrane. The act as enzymes and catalyze molecular changes. They also act as electron transmitters. Proteins are essential to cell function.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate cell environments. They are able to do so by acting as what many people refer to as "gatekeepers" in the sense that they control where and how many of a certain part travels through the cell. They are able to move things from an area of low concentration to high concentration to help to mediate the cells functions. The shape of the cell is also extremely important in the function of the cell, which can be influenced by the proteins as well. The enzymes are a main factor in influencing the shape of cells.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the cellular environment by acting as gatekeepers that protect the cell. Solvents also travel through the proteins (that act like pumps), high solute concentration to low water concentration, low solute concentration to high water concentration. Proteins are also electron transmitters, balancing the metabolism in the cell. And last but not least, there are other proteins that are enzymes which change the shape of the molecule, which changes the function. Proteins mediate the cell because they are gatekeepers, transmitters of metabolism and solutes, and they change the function of the molecule.
ReplyDeleteProteins mediate the inside of the cell through many different functions. Proteins can act as pumps for other molecules, as storage for the cell, or as gatekeepers. Proteins are perfect gatekeepers because they can transport things in and out of the cell through passive transport, facilitated transport, and active transport.
ReplyDeleteScience as an art or art as a science never seemed to parallel to me before taking this class. Now having had been exposed to this idea, I can see how proteins can be seen as such a beautiful creation. Their many layers of complexities determine whether they can function and what type of function they may serve as. Proteins can be transporters, gate keepers, enzymes, structure, etc. and they all get their function from coding that "tells" them what to be. It's similar to our subjective opinions on what something could be. There are many interpretations, but each one has an aesthetic appeal of its own.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear connection when it comes to science and art. More specifically, this post points out the connection between proteins and its function to artistic aesthetics. If the smallest thing changes in a protein, for example the protein changing shape, it has a new function. This change can be seen as an "aesthetic" of proteins. It is interpreting its shape differently, which causes a new function. The protein is therefore reading itself, or understanding itself in a different way. This is similar to how people view art in that people may have different interpretations of different pieces of art.
ReplyDeleteBefore taking your class, it never occurred to me that science and art could be intertwined. Before, I always just thought of art as art and science as science. By combining the two, I can see how different aspects of science can be considered "beautiful" rather than just looking at it in scientific terms. Everything has their own aesthetic appeal and everyone has a different way of perceiving that appeal. Proteins in scientific terms are complex and serve many functions whether its being a transporter, gate keeper, enzyme, and etc. However, they can also be described as an awing creation. They are beautiful and their complexity adds to that beauty.
ReplyDeleteI see proteins as being the different mediums, like canvas and acrylic, wood carving, clay sculpting. They determine what you can do with the medium, and how you go about creating with it. Changes in small aspects, like free form clay molding or using a pottery wheel, can have a huge impact on the final shape, consistency, and style of the object. This is very much like how proteins function within a cell. There are different proteins and based on their shape and makeup, determine how they manipulate the cellular environment.
ReplyDeleteThe comparisons drawn between Science and Art have always been of interest to me. To me, both science and art structures seem simple at a first look, but when you start to dig deeper and examine them you discover complex formations and patterns. A protein, like many pieces of art, is a unique structure that shares similar general characteristics to other proteins yet each has a different purpose in life. Whether a transport protein or "gate keeper," these proteins serve a purpose, and this relies greatly on its shape.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this blog post, I was thinking about the way Professor Hammer stressed communicating science to non-scientists at the beginning of the year. So artists have a way of making things visually appealing and scientific models can be boring and confusing. So my immediate thought was that we should find a way to link the two in way that artists take the models and make them more visually appealing so that we find more interest in understanding these models.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, comparison was made between the interpretation of art/science and the way proteins function. I suppose the way to limit a set of approaches that are common to both art and science it to realize, like you said, that alone something can seem meaningless (like a lone protein) but when combine with something else (a substrate) it reveals its function.You can ask the question “If I combine these two properties does it enhance my understanding of it?” if the answer if yes you can add it to your set as it combine to your understanding of art and science. On the other hand, through this method you can see that, like your example, adding color to a microphotograph does not add to your understanding so it would not be added to the set.
ReplyDeleteInitially I had thought that science and art were not very closely related if at all. Over the past few weeks I have been beginning to see just how closely they are related. The way proteins must take a specific shape in order to complete their function can be comparable to how artists feel they must design their art in a specific way in order to convey it exactly how they want.
ReplyDeleteLately, we have been learning about the functions of proteins and how they contribute to the wellness of a cell. They act as gatekeepers as they regulate what goes in and out of the cell and do this using passive or facilitative transportation. The structure of the protein itself, and its amino acid formation is crucial to the protein as a whole, and thus crucial to the cell that it facilitates itself in. If one amino acid is missing, the protein's shape changes entirely, and thus, its function is altered. There is a clear connection to art here. When mixing together paint on a palate, an artist often searches for the optimal mix, or the perfect color-- one that no one else can mimic perfectly. However, when mixing these colors together, they must use the perfect amount of each to find this color. A variation in amount or viscosity of even one color added can change the color as a whole, and can thus change the whole art piece.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a strong connection between art and science, which has become more and more apparent as this class has progressed. A lot of the our labs over the course of the semester have involved building models and in each of these assignments there has been a lot of room for artistic interpretation. A lot of the labs have also provided us with opportunities to take photos and record videos, which are also forms of art and yet another way to connect art and science.
ReplyDeleteThe connection between science and art is something I had never thought deeply about before reading your blog this year. It never occurred to me that proteins were so aesthetically pleasing. Thinking about the "pleated sheet" and "helix" structure of proteins, it is easy to develop a scientific approach. To even build a model of a helix for example is difficult without an artists understanding of shape. It is important to not over exaggerate art in science, but when it is there it is certainly clear.
ReplyDeleteI never really thought about analyzing science as art until I came into the class. Such things as proteins really depend on the artistic element of shape. Proteins and, more specifically, active sites have to be a certain shape in order for the protein to function properly. If the active site changes, the protein loses its function and the substrate will no longer be able to bond.
ReplyDeleteLike others in this class, I had never really connected art and science before. We have experimented this year with relating the two, and have succeeded. The two definitely coincide; we can use art to demonstrate science and scientific concepts, and we can use scientific concepts in relation to art as well. However, science and art are still independent of each other. Art can be used to explain science much more effectively than science can be used to explain art, making them two concepts that relate in some ways, but not completely.
ReplyDeleteArt and science intersect at the point of creation. Art is, in essence, a process that revolves around movement--whether or not this movement is internal (in the artist's mind) or external (in the actual piece) is irrelevant. Science is movement along many different lines of processing all at once (evolution, genetics, environment, etc). Both rely on non-static, dynamic processes in creating theirs respective things.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJudy Le:
ReplyDeleteYou describe the confusion of art and science in a way that I haven’t thought of. I can see why certain pieces of art and science are not considered a work of the other. Certainly, there are guidelines and conditions that make them a work of art or science. They have the commonality of requiring certain properties to be called either art or science, and something that has both qualities can be considered both. In the same way that a protein must be a specific structure to function in a specific role and are able to flow through an enzyme, something must follow guidelines to be art, science, or both, with the flexibility of being fluid (if that makes sense).
Proteins provide critical functions to the cell such as acting as the "gatekeeper", an enzyme, or a defense mechanism. The proteins allow certain substances in and out of the cell. These functions represent the artistic aspect of the protein because of the movements of the proteins.
ReplyDeleteThinking about the RNA to DNA process is a clear way that I relate science to art. It is highly specific the way the amino acids are are positioned in their order while the bonds between them random like art. The translation process is highly specific too like an art because there is repetition and patter and the use of reciprocals. The way music and math are related seeing the similarities of math and art will help a person succeed in both.
ReplyDeleteBefore this class, I hadn't thought of connecting art and science. But I do think that the visuality of art helps one understand the complexity of science. I think having visuals to connect to helps the understanding. Art is meant to serve as a view on something. It's a POV of how the artist sees something. As for proteins (science) and the aesthetics (art), combining them creates a deeper understanding of the function and properties of science. We make art by building proteins in class, which furthers the understanding of the physical properties of the protein itself. Art and science fit together better than I thought.
ReplyDeleteIn the article it describes how proteins, which are the "gate keepers" of the cell act in a similar way in that art can sometimes be described. For example with art there are different forms, shapes even variations which can also be found in proteins. When proteins have different shapes they have different functions and therefore vary from each protein. Its interesting to connect art and science to be able to describe and understand it differently.
ReplyDeleteGina Ford
Connections between the abstract and conceptual is our function as humans, just in the way proteins do with decoding the hidden messages in cells. So precisely and effectively the protein translates and finds meaning in the things that pass into it. These gatekeepers can determine what to do with what it is given and, like an artist, give it a purpose.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have never thought of art and science as something that could be looked at from a singular point of view due to elements such as volume, composition, and proportion. However, after taking this class, I realized how much the two are connected. I feel as if all science has some artsy tendencies while all art as some sciency values.
ReplyDeleteI had never thought about comparing art and science before. The way in which you use the protein as example really helps me understand the whole concept about how the two are similar. Both art and science require aesthetics to give purpose otherwise there is no meaning.
ReplyDeleteI have always seen a connection between our physical surroundings and art. Nature in its most untouched form is in my opinion what inspired all art to be created. Therefore a connection between art and science (the natural world) is a very obvious thing. Although I do agree art and science are not the same thing, I definitely appreciate nature and science in an artistic way. For example this week we have been discussing proteins and learned that a proteins function is based upon its shape. It is incredible to think that out of all the combinations of shapes which poly-peptide chains form they formed into certain shapes which allow proteins to function. If that is not a connection between art and science I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteSome proteins classify as enzymes in that their job is the "gatekeeper" or "chemist" of the cell allowing certain things in and certain things out. They add, take away or change the shape as other molecules.I would say they play a very important role in doing this. This related to art in that they are the guiding principle in the shape and characteristics of a molecule. Like art, which aesthetically guides the characteristics and the "look" of a particular piece of work. To my surprise, both art and science share the same job as structuring and altering many things in the society we live in. In relation to how enzymes participate in the function of "lock and key" related to the fact that they are the "gatekeeper" of the cell. They have the key to unlock and get in to change things about a molecule.
ReplyDeleteThe article describes the idea of gate keepers. Event though there are differences between proteins and art work, especially when considering the idea that art can be viewed differently among people, there is also a key similarity. Artists and functions of proteins have one thing in common, they both chose how to function. The artist makes his piece and understands it for what it it. A protein has a function and without a change in itself the function will not change. Just like how an artist can add to his piece, changing its function.
ReplyDeleteThis article has brought about a similar thinking with the previous articles mentioned, about aesthetics. This article provides a clear cut analogy that allows readers to see the connection between art and science perfectly. It has shown me the explicit connection between the two, which is the complete opposite of my previous thought. When I was in London for the summer semester, I went to many museums for both art and science. Never did I think they were so connected. The properties in the article apply to both art and science. Very cool.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought about certain types of art as the amount of work that went into making something so complex able to seamlessly work trillions of times over and rarely make any error in doing so, and this blog and class has kind of reinforced that a bit. It relates proteins and RNA and DNA to programming -- a subject which also reminds many of art when you hear terms like "beautiful code". So in that sense, art and science have become more related for me.
ReplyDelete