Simplify, Don’t Remove…
This title alludes to a concept that fascinates me: How much can you remove from something (an object, concept, drawing, etc.) such that it still appears to be the original object? This idea is one that is applicable to both art and science. For example, it bears distinct connections to the concept of the atom, for both current and classical definitions. The atom, in essence, is simply the smallest piece of an element which, if further split, loses its characteristics as that element. In terms of elements, you can remove as much as you want and it will still be considered that element, until you split that defining building-block, the building-block that defines the compound.

What about more abstract concepts such as a human. How much can you remove from an interpretation of a person in a painting or drawing until they bear absolutely no resemblance to a human being? This is a key idea in art. It provides the backbone for many different areas from realism to cubism.

In the two works of art above, the people are both identified as human because the artists managed to capture all the pieces, whatever they may be, that somehow add up to form the human image. Both paintings contain these elements, just that the painting on the right has been simplified. It hasn’t been reduced because the pieces of the human image are all still there.
This idea is fascinating because I believe that it is also seen in the concept of symbols. When one thinks about it, a symbol is some object that bears a hidden, more complex meaning which we humans give it. The same object could be different symbols in different cultures around the world. The symbol is a simplification of the concept which the symbol represents. Some symbols represent, for example, the fall of an empire. If the artist wants to allude to this idea, they don’t have to paint or draw the fall of the empire in their work of art, they can just apply that symbol into the work. This technique is also used by writers.

Of course, symbols are slightly different from what we talked about before. When simplifying the painting of a person, we still retain the human image. Here, with symbols, we take the concept and move it into another object. However, symbols are usually the physical manifestations of some more abstract concept, something that is much more difficult to allude to or mention if not represented by some object. In this sense, I suppose that they are simplifications of some abstract concept. However, the difference between the example of the two paintings shown above and symbols is that (for many symbols) only certain groups of humans in certain regions can perceive the exact simplification of cultural concepts through symbols, while the simplification of the two people in the paintings above can be recognized by anyone. Of course, there are some universal symbols, but even this universality is not completely homogenous across all cultures around the world.
Looking for simplicity in the world around us has been a goal of science since the time of the Ancient Greeks. This idea has also existed in religions around the world seeking some unified explanation of the universe. Today, in the field of science, physicists are looking for a unified quantum gravity theory that will be able to unite the two seemingly opposing branches of physics (quantum mechanics and relativity).
I love it when I get to write a post that covers both science and art!
