Fossil of an extinct fish which helped scientists better understand the appearance of the animal and improve the accuracy of their visual representation of the species.
Courtesy of UCL Grant Museum of Zoology
The Conflict
It seems that Art and Science are constantly battling against each other, striving to prove that one is more significant than the other in the representation of the world. The debate is integral to the function of our society, it can stem from decisions regarding the Government’s financial cuts, to how art galleries and museums choose to execute their displays.
Find out more
The relationship between Science and Art is constantly evolving, one of the recent major collisions arising around the work of Damien Hirst. Each year, a photography exhibition by the Wellcome Collection credits visitors with the opportunity to see what would normally be constrained within a laboratory. Rather than the scientific information being at the forefront, it is the aesthetics that are arguably the most powerful aspect of the photos. Whilst the emphasis in an art gallery is visual consumption, is it possible that Art can help the Scientist gain depth of understanding?
The Object
Pictured above is a fossil of the head shield of Bothriolepis canadenis, which is an extinct class of fish that is believed to have existed from the Silurian to the end of the Devonian Period. It belongs to a group of fish commonly known as the Placoderms, which were among the first jawed fish. The Placoderms are characterized by their amour of bony plates. This fossil was found in Scaumemae Bay, in the Provenience of Quebec, Canada.
The Relevance
The Bothriolepis fossil epitomises the current crossover emerging between Art and Science. It not only provides us with a surplus of information regarding evolution, but also helps us understand the nature of visual representations, because the only way we can obtain these scientific facts, is precisely through visual representations reflected in 3D models and drawings.
Find out more
Representations of scientific objects should not be viewed as detrimental to scientific disciplines, despite the inaccuracy they may hold, because in them resides part of our human nature. Other types of visual representation of the Bothriolepis canadenis all contribute to our understanding of what the Bothriolepis may have looked like. These artistic representations increase our understanding and even though the fossil is a natural object, it is constantly altered by society.
The relationship between these drawings and the fossil demonstrates how humans like to create, redefine, imagine - it is human nature itself which blurs the boundary between Art and Science. The emphasis and value we place on aesthetics compels us to act in this way and causes the conflict between Art and Science because we cannot restrain our individual associations and personal experiences. Yet, the question remains, how long before the boundary between Art and Science completely disappears?