The artistic process as seen by a scientist

My training is in the sciences and engineering, but I also have a great background in the arts. I am a photographer, I like to sketch and I have been trying my hand at watercolors. Years ago I read The Art of Genes by Enrico Coen. Instead of relying on the metaphor that development of a fertilized egg has an embedded list of instructions that govern its development, he uses the metaphor of an artist’s creative process. This is a fascinating book that deserves a read by any individual with curiosity about creativity in nature.

I find it interesting that Coen describes the creative process of visual artists as a prelude to his discussion of biological development of plants and animals. He sees the artist as having a vision in mind and using tools of the trade and skill to realize it, without going through a list of instructions to accomplish the finished product. This is what Coen says:

“As soon as some paint is mixed and put on the canvas, the artist sees a new splash of color that wasn’t there before. This is bound to produce a reaction in the artist who will interpret the effect in a particular way. … The next action of the artist will be influenced by what is seen….” [1]

Of course the story of the gene is utterly interesting, but I wont go into that here.

The artistic process as seen by an art historian

E. H. Gombrich, Art Historian says virtually the same thing in Art and Illusion:. He talks about the artist’s intention, which I equate with the mental vision of the artist as articulated by Coen.

“In a way, perhaps, we always control and adjust our movements by observing their effects, similar to those self-regulating mechanisms that engineers call ‘feedback.’ … [B]ut not even the most skillful artist should claim to be able to plan a single stroke with the pen in all its details. What he can do is adjust the subsequent stroke to the effect observed tin the previous one…” [2]

Linkage, always linkage

There you have it, from a scientist and an art historian: the creative process dependent on visual feedback from the work in progress. The artist’s next step is linked to the previous one.

I would like to read about expressive art that breaks the linkage to intellect. Does this mean eliminating feedback? Maybe it means feedback is to a non-intellectually engaged part of the mind that can dictate the next move. When an artist steps away from the canvas and ponders, I wonder what kind of conversation she has with the canvas.

Parting thought

What does it mean when a gene expresses itself?