Abstract
THE canons of art differ greatly in detail from A those of science, but since intellectual honesty is the basis of both, there is no fundamental distinction between them. To make an orderly statement of accurately observed facts and from those facts to draw logical conclusions is the very essence of science; but the best art is also logical and orderly, as well as being an accurate interpretation of the impression made by the outside world upon the mind of the artist. Observe the. words “interpretation” and “impression”; they are important because they lie at the very root of the matter; whereas science is, or should be, strictly objective, art is intensely subjective. For the rest, the differences are mainly those of design, technique, and of the medium of expression. Is it always recognized that there is as much skill in design shown by the well-written and well-balanced scientific paper as there is in a first-class painting, and that when J. M. W. Turner removed a castle bodily from one bank of the river to the other, because in this way he improved the design on his canvas, he was doing no more and no less than the man of science who puts one section of his paper in front of another so as to improve the balance of the whole? In so far as the man of science recognizes these differences and leaves his prejudices, which are many, outside, so his bewilderment will decrease and his interest and enjoyment increase. In this year's Exhibition at the Royal Academy much is provided to enjoy, and very little to bewilder.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
HOPWOOD, A. Science and Art at the Royal Academy. Nature 147, 599–600 (1941). https://doi.org/10.1038/147599a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/147599a0