Rating: 
Summary: opened my eyes
Review: It seems from a few better-read reviewers that Shlain's views on history are less than objective. I won't stick up for him as an author by pretending to know what they know. But I will stick up for this book as a whole. When I first read this, I was an ignorant reader and thinker. This book opened my eyes to a world I glimpsed from the periphery but could not fully recognize. It made me very interested in art, science, philosophy and mathematics (and reading also, as it happens). In essence, it provided that first drop of water that started my brain to becoming the presently insatiable sponge it is.Shlain writes in a very accessible manner, not only in syntax, but also in how he presents information. Though his presentation of theories may be 'shallow', he covers a broad subject in a small amount of space on the page. This enables someone unfamiliar with the concept to grasp it easily. Relativity is much easier to grasp over a span of three pages in plain words with numerous illustrations than it is by reading Einstein's original writings. And Einstein's writings are always out there if further, in-depth, analysis is desired. Though there is a thesis here, this book is better as an introduction to ideas of perception than it is a piece of scientific genius. If you believe that there is more to the world than what you see, but can't quite grasp the concept, this book is for you. Inherent in that statement is the suggestion that you are not an art historian or an actual physicist. If you already have a strong idea of how the world physically works, this will probably be little more than a review. That said, there is a connection between art and science, and Shlain does a good job of providing a compare/contrast presentation of the dichotomy.
Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing and contrived
Review: It seems that a lot of the past reviews are duplicated and this has resulted in a star rating that is not representative of the general view. I am very interested in art and science (I am an artist who reads science) and I collect books that explore the meeting point between the two fields. This is by far the worst of the bunch. Shlain consistently miss-represents the facts and draws farcical comparisons that remind me of the kind of thinking that astrologers are prone to. This book goes down with the "bible code" and those interpretations of ancient predictions that only ever get deciphered after the thing that they are prediction happens. I wanted to finish it before writing a review but this would have been a waste of my time. "Art & Physics" gives the art-science crossover a bad name and should be taken out of print.
Rating:
Summary: Neither Art nor Science
Review: It's a truly wonderful concept: How do the Arts and the Sciences relate? Unfortunately, Shlain gets it wrong. His Physics is so often incorrect, especially concerning Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that his entire line of reasoning falls apart. And as for his claim that artists lead the vision of discovery (for example, it was artists who envisioned the concepts of Relativity such as in "Nude Descending a Staircase"), he neglects the fact that Science is more methodical than Art. While a new style of painting is created and justified the first time an artist makes a piece, a new theory of physics is developed over a lifetime and must be rigorously justified. The questions and thoughts that gave rise to Relativity were created long before (it goes back to Galileo) the Cubist style of painting was invented.
Rating: 
Summary: A Pretty Good Read About a Tough Topic
Review: Leonard Shlain deserves credit for taking a good shot at a very slippery topic--the inter-relationship between how art presents reality and how physicists conceive of reality--which is such a bottomless pit that any attempt to fill it is damned in advance. But we need these attempts, because they are interesting and provocative. Shlain's thesis, very generally, is that artists throughout history (focusing on Western art and history) have anticipated physicists discoveries about the nature of space, time and light, and that artists have created images that represent these new visions before physicists formulated their new theories. He theorizes that artists unconsciously tap into a Jungian "Universal Mind," shared by all humanity, that informs their "right brain" visions just as it informs the physicist's more laborious "left brain" reality constructs, which by virtue of their experimental and logical nature require more time for development. The book is an easy, pleasurable read and a provocative historical survey of the main movements in art and physics, and does indeed present some interesting comparisons. For example Giotto's revolutionary introduction of painting three-dimensional space depicting a single moment in time laid the foundation for perspective theory, which, it can be argued, helped Copernicus, some 200 years later, contemplate the idea that viewing the universe from a sun-centered "perspective" made reality much easier to explain than viewing it from an earth-centered perspective. Similarly, avante-garde European painting from Manet on experimented with depictions of space, time and light that violated all existing artistic standards and uncannily foreshadowed the discoveries of Einstein and 20th century physics. Yet there are other ways to pin down art's motive forces. Giotto's elevation of the individual's perspective on reality can also be seen as an illustration of the individual's rising power in a society defined by a collapsing feudal system and a rising middle-class. Certainly this was the essence of the Renaissance. And the contributions of Manet, Cezanne and other moderns can also be analyzed simply as reactions against centuries of exhausted academic realism and a sui-generic evolution of what new things painting can do within it's own picture space pursued by artists who were generally able to paint without the need to earn a living--thus they could indulge themselves. For example, the relativity of color, which was introduced by early modern painters and advanced by the Fauvists, doesn't need relativity or 20th century physics. An object's color is relative to the color of the light sources shining on it. Of course these theories aren't convincing either. That's part of the problem, nothing can be "proved" only suggested. But the biggest challenge I saw to the author's contention that a collective universal mind, existing outside of time, informs both artists' visions and physicists' theories is that this doesn't explain the sequentiality of art history. Artists, in all times, should access this repository of concepts, if indeed it resides in a timeless, collectively accessible consciousness. So why shouldn't a Manet arrive in Augustan Rome, or a Cezanne in Charlemagne's Europe, or a Jackson Pollock in the court of the Medicis (imagine that)? Perhaps the answer is that they did, but no one would pay for their work or take them seriously given the existing style of the times. This conclusion would complicate the issue of course. Yet given the deplorable state of art criticism, awash as it is in victimology, Mr. Shlain's honest attempt is a breath of fresh air. And even where one disagrees with him, he provokes thought. I didn't find his arguments always convincing, but I did find his book enjoyable throughout.
Rating: 
Summary: Shallow and confused
Review: Leonard Shlain is a surgeon, not an art historian neither a physicist. His culture is impressively broad, but unfortunately shallow. His main thesis in this book is that basically all scientific discoveries were anticipated by artists. I find the interwoven relationship between art and science absolutely fascinating, but this book is not a reference that I would recommand on the topic. The main problem is that this book abuses of the juxtaposition of unrelated facts, and presents them with such virtuosity that a magical causality seem to appear. Shlain presents ancient thoughts with the enlightenment of modern frameworks, subtly rewriting them, emphasizing concept and translating them such that they seem to fit with forthcoming theories. This kind of pitfall has been described by Kuhn (the structure of scientific revolution). For example, if Newtonian mechanics can be expressed in the framework of relativity, relativity is NOT and extension of Newtonian physics, there is a fundamental revolution between them. It is only because Newtonian physics has been rewritten that it becomes more compatible with Einstein's new insights. Moreover, Shlain's understanding of relativity is weak at best. For example, he often makes the confusion between the effect of the finite speed of light (which can be expressed in a Newtonian context) and relativity. I was all the more disappointed that some of the issues are actually relevant and fascinating: relativity, non Euclidean, surrealism and cubism for example do share a common revolution of the notion of space (and thus of the place of humans in the world). Unfortunately, Shlain's caricatural statements are irrelevant: Manet had absolutely no idea of the concepts involved in relativity, and Einstein himself pointed out that cubism had nothing to deal with relativity (as opposed to Picasso's claims). If you want a good introduction to art history, read Gombrich, if you want to learn about physics in a broad context, read Zajong (Catching the light).
Rating:
Summary: Excellent insight
Review: Shlain's willingness to tackle 2 huge issues provoked my thinking in many areas. In the end I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions but that is less important than that I now see conections between the two areas and have a better idea of what happended throughout time. I'm writing this 2 years after reading the book but I remember it as keeping me engaged with new ideas from page to page.
Rating:
Summary: Honest and Thoughtful
Review: So good, I bought it twice. A delicate and careful tracing of our history through the stories of two vital and disparate ideas: This juxtaposition of the fine arts and the hard sciences seems like a ludicrous idea at first, but Shlain builds a solid ladder of thoughts on each side's contribution to the other. His conclusions at times appear to be wound more out of opinion than fact, but that seems to be a subtle undercurrent throughout the book; as if a challenge is made, not to think like he does, but simply ->to think<-. To write a book about something as wide as art is monumental. To write a book about something as deep as physics is colossal. To even attempt a bridge between these worlds shows a spirit indomitable. The science of this book would not impress Plank. The art of this book would not wow Matisse. This marriage of the two fields would provide inspiration to them both. Art & Physics is my most prized book.
Rating:
Summary: the point?
Review: the arts and the physics of everything is to use it in unity to explore the subconcious, our spiritual mind and our tangible 'life'. the point of the whole story is that we are not demonstrating reconciliation when we constantly put downt the other side because of egocentrics of both parties. obviously physics is a stopable train, in the motion of the bride, so will say Duchamp is that the abstract, however immeasurable, it is the train that is an unstopable force. so in physics, to go beyond what is deserved by what we find to be concrete evidence- it is the end. now where does the search go from here? what happened to opposites attract? where is the love of both working? the relativity of the Universe is what makes It work, and so my mind shall work the same way. the whole point of a masterpeice is to imagine where it came from, which part of the Universe, my thoughts, my actions, my conscious words, my divine action to not separate. the point of Shlain's story is that if we learn to recognize ourselves for who we are, who we were, and from a linear perspective, who we will be? what can we accomplish if we are "Relative"??? eternity. but of course, the key is, will we be able /allowed to attain it?
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The author barely scratches the surface of what should be a fascinating topic. His knowledge of physics and art, as displayed in the book, are not even at an educated layman's level. Also, he simply does not make the connections between art and physics intuitive; at best they are coincidental and have no resonance. This book is okay for people with little experience with art or physics, but should be skipped by people with previous knowledge and experience of the fields.
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining read that makes you think...
Review: The intellectual snobbery of a few reviewers of this book make me wonder why they would bother reading something of this nature in the first place. If you're looking for a hardcore physics textbook, go elsewhere. If you're looking for a hardcore art textbook, go elsewhere. Mr. Shlain is not trying to impress you with any kind of infinite depth of knowledge in the field of physics nor art. What he IS doing, and quite entertaining at that, is suggesting that from often unrelated fields of study in society there exists an emergence of similar conceptual breakthroughs along a historical timeline. This book is about the psychological and sociological connection between the subjects of art and physics, and provides a look at many examples in history to further this suggestion.
| 
