GIF Minutes for November 30, 2004, and January
Prepared by Roland Stahl
Graduate Idea Forum, November 30, 2004, and January 11,
Picasso: Space, Time and the Beauty That Causes Havoc"
Participants: Paul Grobstein, Anne Dalke,
Tom Young, Roland Stahl, Judie McCoyd, Corey Shdaimah
For today's discussion we read the following article:
Arthur I. Miller, Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time and
the Beauty That Causes Havoc
Notes. GIF November 2004 and January 2005 meetings
In the November and January GIF meetings we discussed Arthur I.
Miller’s Einstein. Picasso. Space, Time and the Beauty that
Causes Havoc (2001).
In our first discussion in November we focused on questions that
seemed relevant in terms of Einstein’s and Picasso’s
personal biographies. Most people would probably agree that both
Einstein as a mathematician and Picasso as an artist belong to
that rare species of people whom we commonly refer to as genial.
This, it seemed to most of us raised questions about what exactly
distinguishes Picasso and Einstein from most other people. What
is it that enables them to produce work of such intellectual and
socio-cultural importance? It was argued that the ability to turn
out the kind of masterpieces produced by Picasso and Einstein requires
most of all extreme imaginative power and passion.
Yet, along with imagination and passion, we felt that Picasso’s
and Einstein’s biographies also indicated that both these
men lived exceedingly monastic lives. They were loners in the sense
that they never seemed to really engage with the people surrounding
them. They were not social people and some of us felt that they
might not necessarily have been the kind of people that one might
wish to have as companions.
This ‘dark side’ of leading an overly passionate and
solitary life lead us to wonder what the lives of those people
were like who were in fact (or tried to be) wives, partners, friends,
or colleagues of Picasso and Einstein. Miller, most of us thought
provided a rather austere account of the people who were close
with these two men, especially the women in their lives. The women
who had important roles to play in Einstein’s and Picasso’s
lives often seemed to have to bear the consequences of their partner’s
focus on their work. In fact, one group member asked whether ‘monastic
people needed to make other people suffer’. Is it indeed
necessary that the social fabric around people like Picasso and
Einstein fails and is this essential condition for the production
of genial work?
More generally one might ask whether there are parallels between
the idea (and reality) of a lone genius and the ideology of the
competitor in a capitalist system. Do we live in a world were the ‘winner
takes all’ in the sense that the producers of great works
of industry, science, and art are to be excused for causing havoc
on the peoples lives around them? But then again, if those people
would not be able to produce their great works, would we really
be content to live in a world were we had no idea that time and
space were relative entities and where none of us could ever have
marveled at Les Demoiselles d’Avignion or a Microsoft program
for that matter. Our discussion ended as they often do with more
questions tha answer.
In our January meeting we talked about the novelty aspect of Picasso’s
and Einstein’s works. In a very general sense we considered
whether novelty and change in and of itself was something to strive
for. Is there something inherently positive about novelty and change?
What is the difference between novelty and change and is the human
drive to change things a biological or cultural feature of our
lives? We discussed Freud’s conceptualization of stability
and change and at length whether the attempt to solve a problem
is aimed at stability or whether it is in fact aimed at change.
It was mentioned that there might be two types of problem solving
and both can be based on what one might call curiosity: problem
solving: 1. aimed at stability (e.g. preventing the next tsunami,
and 2. aimed at newness (e.g. trying to figure out why the stars
move they way they do). We also discussed that there seems to be
a different balance between the drive for newness and the drive
to solve problems in different people and Paul explained that we
can see the difference between the drives for stasis and change
on the physical/neurological level.
Roland Stahl, 11/1/2004
| Calendar | About
| Getting Involved
| Groups | Initiatives | Bryn Mawr Home | Serendip Home
Director: Liz McCormack -
| Faculty Steering Committee
| Secretary: Lisa Kolonay
, by Center for Science in Society, Bryn Mawr College and Serendip
Tuesday, 07-Mar-2006 15:45:37 EST