Wonderful post there! Since you solicited the opinion of a philosopher, I thought I would add mine. ;)



You wrote that, "Pure art is wholly subjective, full of mystery and self-expression. . . It exists for its own purposes, having no more or less meaning than the artist intended, and sometimes not even that!"



This view is representative, I believe, of the current state of aesthetics. Under the classical Greek interpretation (a la Plato), art serves a purpose of reflecting beauty, not just the beauty as the artist or the perceiver see it, but Beauty itself. Everyone- to some degree- understands what is meant by the beautiful. The difference lies on what perfect expression beauty takes on in the material world.



I don't want to speak for all of DB's fan base, but I am probably not too far off the mark in suggesting that us DB fans find Ryan's artwork to be beautiful. We see in his renders something that stirs the soul, whether it is off to the deepest edges of space, to the wonders of nature, or even the eccentricities of the abstract. Art is supposed to do that- stir the soul. If we can look at Ryan's art, and say that it is beautiful in an objective sense, then Ryan has accomplished his task.



In the meantime, art and science do complement each other. Again, from the classical philosophical sense, science aims at knowledge (this is not to be confused with the demonstrable sciences as we understand it today). We can lay claim to knowing something as it really is, when we can grasp the essence of the object. If art can point us to what is beautiful, and help us to grasp what true beauty is, can it not also be said that it is also scientific?



I apologize for my ramblings.



To Ryan- Good luck on your presentation tomorrow!!

Ryan, I know I said I would try and swing by, but unfortunately my sister's high school graduation is on the same day....but hopefully you'll get to do something like this again soon, Good Luck!

I worked at a planetarium for five years of college. Art and science definitely go hand in hand, and artist renderings of astronomical phenomena are very important to the planetarium field. Hubble can only go so far. Your space scenes are so amazing and excellently put together that I would even go so far as to suggest getting in touch with planetariums like the Adler or the Hayden and offer your work to them, if only for galleries.



There is a great need for people who can bridge the gap between data and art, and do so in a way that is both scientifically accurate but yet breathtakingly beautiful. You accomplish this on a regular basis.

I consider myself a scientist (electrical engineer), and I think that science and art have some important differences, but also some important commonalities.



I think art helps science not only when it is totally accurate, but even when it is partially accurate, or sometimes when it is totally fanciful. Science is based in the hard facts, but as someone else here said, you need some imagination to be able to make much progress. I saw a show on History a few weeks ago describing how things such as Star Trek and Star Wars had influenced the development of technology because the people who grew up seeing that and thinking it was cool have gone out to create the things they liked.



I think, also, especially importantly, art can fuel a desire to progress science. I'm sure there are some other scientists out there who really get their desire to do research from looking at a bunch of equations, but I sure don't. One of the things that gets me really excited to do technical work is seeing art depicting something I want to work on: DB is a good example. One of the things that gets me most excited to work on a project is watching Iron Man or listening to the sound track.



Vice versa, I think science helps give art things to show. I think the world would be a much more boring place if we didn't know something about planets and space. While art can be total fantasy (dragons, etc), just knowing there are things out there like pulsars, singularities, or ice worlds helps artists like you produce some really breathtaking stuff, which then can help inspire scientists to do more research.



To be honest, I think they kind of feed each other.

Pure science is wholly objective, cold and intellectual. It is a systemized, methodical process constrained by the ability to repeat and verify any results. It is the pursuit of knowledge, the accumulation of data for the express purpose of proving a hypothesis, and in a perfect world, nothing else. Science is sterile, detached, and under constant review.



Pure art is wholly subjective, full of mystery and self-expression. It is the embodiment of a vision, of an emotion, of ambiguous intangibles. It is completely personal and irreproducible. It exists for its own purposes, having no more or less meaning than the artist intended, and sometimes not even that! Any inspiration others gain from it is a by-product. Art is messy, all consuming, and under constant interpretation.



The two share a singular characteristic – imagination. Without imagination neither would get very far.



What happens happen when the two overlap? Ask M.C Escher, Roger Penrose, Leonardo Da Vinci, Salvador Dali or the like. Art can, and has, often expressed abstractions of science that would be otherwise extremely difficult to explain. Likewise, science has brought about revolutions in tools, techniques and mediums that have greatly expanded the horizons of art. In short, the two have influenced each other far more than either will ever admit.



When does science become an art, or vice versa? Does art diminish science, or vice versa? Ask a philosopher. Such questions simply make my head hurt



BTW: the title is a quote from Penn Jillete, of Penn & Teller; an artist of illusion who relies on science at every single performance.

Let's not forget we don't fully understand science and nature so we can't say definitely a piece of art is not scientifically possible. There was a time when it was 'scientific fact' that the earth was flat, that it was impossible to travel at the speed of sound, etc. and those have all been prove false. Things that seemed like science fiction are now common place: every one has cell phones that do more than star trek communicators, the idea of robots appeared in science fiction in 1930's and although we haven't fully achieved them to that extent yet I don't think anyone would have a hard time believing it's possible, etc..



I enjoy your art for what it is, art, and I don't judge it based on it's scientific accuracy. Art can be used to motivate or inspire people to push the boundaries of what is possible.



Your art clearly has a large following which is the definitive proof, you're doing the right thing. I for one, encourage you to keep doing what your doing.

--Kevin

Found it. Sangre is an abstract in 2003.

Whoa, Jenanne... thats scary. Anyway, good luck with the Workshop-thingy!

We're entering the Twilight Zone (not that there's anything wrong with that) .... look at the comment dates beginning with John's comment "Sweet." I'm fairly sure we haven't been discussing this since December 2009. :) At any rate, what a great honor for all in attendance to hear Ryan speak! I wish I could be there.



Christie: if you like blood cells, check out Ryan's "Sangre" render. I'm not sure what year -- you might do a search. It's a great image.

Art doesn't have to be scientifically correct to be fabulous!



On the other hand, I am instructor for MLS (Medical Lab Scientists) and art can be very helpful when it is scientifically correct. I guess it all depend on the focus of the piece.



Keep up the amazing work! I would love to see some blood cells in your work!



Chris

Art certainly shouldn't need to be scientificly accurate; the obvious counter example is fantasy art, almost by definition art about contexts not matching "real world" science.



And plenty of art as scientific illustration (eg all the "artist impression" images accompanying articles) will almost always vary from true realism in various regards. Personally, my only real desire for such contexts is that some guideline accompany such an image indicating what is most realistic, or what is not, depending on where in that spectrum it lies - i.e. it should be fairly apparent in context what should be taken as realistic.



Your stuff falls into the "photo realistic" realm to my eye. I know its all fiction and view it for the visual pleasure - my only "realistic" desires in that context are that it doesn't "jar" against my brains world model i.e. it doesn't look "wrong" or "wonky".



So to me, context matters. In a scientific context, accompanying images should be realistic, at least as far as what they're trying to portray or elucidate, and be annotated to indicate the real versus easy-to-look-at boundary. The classic trivial example is the "diagram not to scale" remark found on many images.

Art and science, the yin and yang of life. I find I need the art, with its flowing, fluid forms of imagination, to offset the harshness of science, with it precision, accuracy and drive to reveal the basics of nature. We need them both and one doesn't diminish the other.

Is artwork diminished if it isn't scientifically accurate? Absolutely not. Artwork is the imagination that inspires science. If you can't imagine it and express it then it never comes to be.

I've been working on this comment for nearly 15 minutes, but decided that I was giving you to much advice, so I deleted it all.



I'll just leave this little bit in, it may help in someway:

People like different types of art... Some people like paintings, others like computer generated things, some like modern art, some like cartoons and stick figure drawings... Some consider art to be something else, such as the art of being able to make a person laugh.



Make of it what you will, but whatever you choose to say and teach, I wish you good luck! I'd stop in to see you, but I'm not even in the same country.

The original Star Trek was a form of art. The little handheld communicators that the crew would flip open and speak into were the product of someone's imagination. Imagine something small enough to fit in your hand that would beep when it was your turn to talk. What will they think of next? Maybe a small, handheld box that gives you access to all sorts of information? Nah, never happen.



Kudos for the invite. Any chance you can get someone to shoot a video of your speech?

Shame I can't stop by and meet you, but hope you have a great time, and congrats on the invitation.

that's great Ryan!

A major step for you!

Congrats! =) You deserve it!



hope you inspire more to follow your art!



Merry X-Mas to all!

Been a fan for a long time, didnt realize you were that close.

Ryan, I live in Evanston, so you'll be literally right down the street from me, so shame on me if I didn't stop by and meet you...especially when your artwork has graced the desktops of all my computers for the better part of the last decade...



Again, I agree with the previous comment, I'll be eagerly awaiting more details whenever they arise

I live northwest of Chicago and work only about 30 mins from the University. I would definitely like to attend. So do you have more details on this event? Like what date in May, so I can put it on my calendar. Also maybe a time if you know that as well.

Ya know, I never gave much thought to what the name of this site might actually mean until right now...

May you inspire someone to follow in your footsteps... bright blessings and happy Yule!

Very well deserved. Wish I could attend.

May just have to drive down from Milwaukee for this..

---

John

Ryan,



That sounds like a great opportunity for you to get more exposure for your artwork. If I'm in Chicago in May, I'll have to look you up!



Your newest wallpaper is awesome as always. Keep up the good work, but make sure you take a break to enjoy time with the family over the Christmas holiday!



Greg in KC