Home > Uncategorized > The world in a drop of water

The world in a drop of water

Photographer Markus Reugels can capture the world in one drop of water. Amazing right? I saw this article and I told myself I had to post it. His “hobby” as he says, is capturing images in tiny globes of water. What an interesting hobby, I thought. He started about three years ago but he soon became very interested in water-drop photography. I didn’t even know that existed. Did you?

 

The article is basically a Q&A via email from the livescience website. The link is http://www.livescience.com/18358-water-droplet-world-photography.html.

I really like the science articles that have to do with the artists of the world. Markus Reugels could not have said it any better when he explained to the reporter why he liked photography. He said that in photography “you don’t know what you’re going to get.” I believe this is true about anything artistic. Even from personal experience when I used to create choreographies or try to copy choreographies, there would always be a slightly different outcome then I expected. This is what I believe is a significant difference between science and art. In science, if you don’t get the result you expected, you need to try again. In art, if you don’t get what you expected, you did it right. Do you guys agree?

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. ProfMyers
    February 9, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    I don’t agree! There are so very many science stories about discovery coming from intuitive leaps, from unexpected connections and encounters — I think that science and art are so much more similar than our cultural “perception of their nature” admits, and in a lot of ways, that’s why I wanted to teach this class!

    Consider: I’m a poet. That’s an identity generally stereotyped as sort of flighty, airy, confusing or ridiculous, head-in-the-clouds, can’t do math, always scribbling and dreaming. Yet in reality, successful poets are ones who spend enormous amounts of time studying poetic forms and traditions and learning to see patterns and conventions that are incredibly precise and exacting. Dance is the same, isn’t it? Most beautiful, transcendent choreography is built on a foundation of repetition of a series of basic forms — A LOT of repetition! hours and hours of it! And then the art part comes from taking these familiar, traditional forms and the expectations they carry with them, and then meeting them, resisting them, overturning them, varying them, combining them – in new ways.

    In science, there are all these traditional forms for experiment and data collection and so on–familiar, traditional forms, right? But a lot of scientific discover involves combining or subverting or altering or reinventing those forms in ways nobody ever thought of before. Hey! I’m going to use /this/ experimental methodology to study /that/ concept! What if I applied this theory that’s been around forever in this way that nobody ever thought of?

    It’s just that we generally focus on the transcendent creativity when we talk about art (poetry, dance, painting, etc) and we focus on the rigorous forms and systems when we talk about science.

  2. anthonypribadi
    February 10, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Hi. I do quite agree with Prof Myers. I think zg11’s conclusion is too strong a statement. I can easily give counter examples for that. According to own experiences, I have redone some stuffs related to art. For instance, consider a group of people who want to do music recording (well I consider music as an art), they want to make sure the music is recorded just the way they want it to be: tempo, beats, melodies, solos, interludes, endings, and all other small details. (Even though some people think that the solo line in music line is completely arbitrary and on-the-spot-feeling-based, that is not entirely true. They do roughly plan what they want to play, and sometimes they even read scores too). The rental price of music studio is also quite expensive, so they would want to do that in the most efficient manner and normally they come prepared to a music studio, making sure that they won’t make too many mistakes. And what do they do if someone makes mistake? Well, that someone will need to replay his/her part. This is not a 100% true formula though. If the “mistake” gets lucky and is better/preferable than what is written on the score book, maybe they will move on.

    And for the science case, I have done an experiment in lab whose results did not quite agree with the theories/formulas. But guess what, I did not manipulate nor redo the experiment! Well, if the result is way too arbitrary then maybe I should redo that. But in my case, it was acceptable if the result did not agree with the black-and-white agreement. There are some uncontrollable factors that may affect the result, such as temperature, wind speed, inaccuracy in the measuring devices, etc. The more important thing was to analyze why the differences and to see if the result still made sense. Away from that, although generally speaking people are theory-laden (i.e. we want to see our experiment works just as what we expected it to be), some great discoveries were because some scientists had enough courage to overcome their theory-laden beliefs. An example is the discovery of the duality of matter behavior. It is well known among scientists that any matter behaves as both a particle and a wave at every instance. This effect is seen clearly when the matter is as small as atoms or electrons. But anyway, yeah, scientists were used to believe that particles and waves were two different things. Expectations change in science as the time advances! And an expectation changes because an experiment mismatch with the expected behavior.

  3. lexicory
    February 13, 2012 at 2:34 am

    I think both sides can be right. Most art is not precise such as science oftentimes is. Science typically has predictions and measurements, while art is more of a free expression from this. This is not to say that art can’t be science, and that science can’t be art- they both can. A statement like either isn’t or is, is simply too broad for both sides.
    Art is more of a free expression, where things are captured as they happen. Science is often precise and somewhat predictable- although, admittedly, not always so. However, it is too wide a road to classify either as something that “is” or something that “isn’t.” Since there are so many different types of art, indeed there are some that are similar to science, such as the art of music that Anthony mentioned. Theories and hypothesis can be applied to all aspects of life, art included.

  4. February 14, 2012 at 12:48 am

    I totally agree. Primarily, I want to say that I used to be enrolled in art school before I came to GW and I thought I was accustomed to the art world but I have never heard of Markus Reugels. I’m glad you posted this about his work because his work is remarkable. I love the concept. But it’s funny that you said “In science, if you don’t get the result you expected, you need to try again,” because today in class we were discussing this and relating it to the writing process. Honestly, everything goes through a process and I don’t anything is ever finished. Science never sleeps because new foundings in different areas are constantly discovered. To an artist, a piece can never be finished even if it looks that way. Art surrounds an on going process of reworking and adding/taking away from the piece. Art and science reflect 2 very different subjects but their ongoing procedures to connect them.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: