Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Well ... IMHO that artist was an anus. In the 1970s and '80s I used to read Feynman's contributions in a monthly science magazine called Omni. I don't know if it's still around as I haven't seen a copy for years. It was a brilliant mag' but got too expensive to keep buying it on my then meagre income. His stuff was visionary and imaginative, as was the magazine. Not only did it contain articles of factual science and scientific discoveries, it also had Sci-Fi and fantasy sections. In addition there were full page artworks, some of which were imaginary - such as paintings of what planets might look like if we were to see them up close and personal - and others were fantastic illustrations of discoveries found under the microscope.
Remember, even in the 1970's most of what a scientist saw through his/her microscope had to be hand drawn since the photographic equipment that did exist was very expensive. My point is, that an awful lot of scientists are also accomplished artists. Meanwhile, the artist who queried Feynman seems to have been someone of extremely superficial imagination. I'm at a loss to understand how the person could have been much of an artist whilst lacking the insight to look deeper into a subject. Not only that but surely art is not just about beauty. There is as much ugliness, banality, fiction, reality, dullness and strangeness depicted in art as there is diversity in artistic media.
To sum up, Feyman must have been truly in shock when he heard this from his artist friend. Either that or he made that bit up to give his explanation of the beauty in science a counterpoint. Knowing Feynman I suspect it's the latter.
Remember, even in the 1970's most of what a scientist saw through his/her microscope had to be hand drawn since the photographic equipment that did exist was very expensive. My point is, that an awful lot of scientists are also accomplished artists. Meanwhile, the artist who queried Feynman seems to have been someone of extremely superficial imagination. I'm at a loss to understand how the person could have been much of an artist whilst lacking the insight to look deeper into a subject. Not only that but surely art is not just about beauty. There is as much ugliness, banality, fiction, reality, dullness and strangeness depicted in art as there is diversity in artistic media.
To sum up, Feyman must have been truly in shock when he heard this from his artist friend. Either that or he made that bit up to give his explanation of the beauty in science a counterpoint. Knowing Feynman I suspect it's the latter.
