Re: Histology as a science or an art.?

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:"Sarah Christo" <>
To:<>, <>
Date:Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:38:46 -0500
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Dear Barry,
    I agree with your artfull analysis of both Russ and Histology as art.  Just joking Russ....
   Here is a quote for you out of my favorite book the Theory & Practice of Histotechnology, by Sheehan, second edition, page 79.  "Microtomy is an art."  There, it's in print, therefore is true, I think.  Sarah

Sarah Christo, HT (ASCP)
Texas A&M University
College of Veterinary Medicine
Dept. of Vet. Anatomy & Public Health
College Station, TX  77868-4458

>>> "Barry Rittman" <> 04/13 1:19 PM >>>
        suspect that you have been sampling the local brew or have been
exposed to too much  rugby (incidently, I am not sure if you regard rugby
as a science or art!).
There is of course art in science and science in art. Although you say
that you do not necessarily need training to enjoy or perform art this is
usually not true for most individuals. There are of course born singers
etc.but for the vast majority of us there are progressive levels of
understanding up to which we can be raised by a more knowledgeable
individual be they artist or scientist or both.  As someone pointed out
earlier, art and science are inextricably interwoven. I think that if you
examine the lives of most of the famous scientists you will see that they
usually had as much interest in art as in the science for which they were
famous and in some instances it was chance that they ended up in science.
You just have to look at Leonardo's anatomic drawings and his decriptions
to appreciate both the art and the science. While science may be held up
as a more logical discipline, art often distills the essence of subjects
and may be used to provide a simpler concept to grasp. Picasso's dove for
example, has 5 or 6 lines to it and while not a photographic
representation of the dove it provides the grace and spirit of the dove.
In many instances science is so tied with minutia that it loses sight of
the broad picture. Art may bring us back to reality.  I  can remember many
instances where scientific problems have been solved by a non-scientist
(such as an artist) looking at a photograph with a fresh perspective.
You live in a beautiful part of the UK, get outside, appreciate the
natural art that is there and ignore Darwin for a moment.


> Cannot agree with art and science being the same! Three main reasons:
> 1You do not necessarily need any educating or training in the subject
> to enjoy, or even perform, art.  Singers are born with a gift, just
> like ball-players.  so are those who can draw.  Sure most of us can
> do a bit with tuition and training.
> 2 People in arts and science can discuss arts with equal intellect and
> knowledge.  Arts people cannot discuss science without specialist
> knowledge (and, probably, training)
> 3 Science is like an ever expanding pyramid.  It is all built on
> knowledge that has been established before (and that really means
> established, not guessed or opined).  The essence of science is to try
> and disprove a hypothesis or theory.  Art is like it or not.
> Two different things - reality and abstract, fact and figmentation
> There speaks a self-opinionated scientist (I hope!)
> ps, I like art.
> pps I love science
> Russ Allison, Wales

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>