Scan barcode
jenniferdeguzman's review against another edition
4.0
Jonathan Lehrer examines the avante garde work of eight artists -- one poet (Walt Whitman), four novelists (George Eliot, Marcel Proust, Gertrude Stein, and Virginia Woolf), one painter (Paul Cezanne), one composer (Igor Stravinsky), and one chef (Auguste Escoffier) -- and shows how it anticipated scientific principles that would later be discovered. The eight essays are absorbing, and Lehrer writes about science in a way that is accessible and enlightening for those more familiar with the humanities. His literary interpretations of works like Middlemarch, In Search of Lost Time, and To the Lighthouse do not stray from traditional readings and offer anything new as far as literary criticism goes, but that's not really in the scope of this book.
The weakest chapter is that on George Eliot, in which he seeks to show that Eliot's rejection of the determinist philosophy of her time is borne out not only in her writing but in the science of DNA. However, in seeking to show that we have biological freedom, Lehrer overlooks that we, like the characters in Eliot's novels, have free will but are born into unalterable circumstance and are affected by forces outside our control -- such as the choices of others and nature (as the characters of Eliot's The Mill on the Floss could tell us).
The balance of the book is very strong, however, and I particularly enjoyed the chapters on Whitman, Stravinsky and Woolf. The inseparability of body and mind, the neuroscience of music, and the construction of consciousness are all elegantly explored and explained.
The final chapter is a "coda" in which Lehrer expresses a wish for a "fourth culture" that will "freely transplant knowledge between the sciences and the humanities, and will focus on connecting the reductionist fact to our actual experience." He is very persuasive, and a desire to better understand how science can enlighten art and art can enlighten science is what led me to his book in the first place. I do find, though, that Lehrer can be too positive about the limits of science; he writes, "It is naive to think that science can solve everything by itself, or that everything can be solved." Too often I've seen in centuries-old writing the opinion that we would never discover something that today we have, such as what stars are made of and how they burn. I agree that there are limits to our knowledge now, and that art helps us delve through those limitations, but I do not think it follows that we will not someday understand and know what we don't today. I think it is better to say that art helps us to discover what we do not yet understand and know, and once those problems are solved, it will discover more. Art is the guide for our increasing knowledge, leading us to new paths of inquiry.
I do not agree with Lehrer on everything, but I value this book for that very reason. Where I disagree with him leads me to think things out for myself, and the fascinating work he does linking art and science inspires me to read more, to learn more.
The weakest chapter is that on George Eliot, in which he seeks to show that Eliot's rejection of the determinist philosophy of her time is borne out not only in her writing but in the science of DNA. However, in seeking to show that we have biological freedom, Lehrer overlooks that we, like the characters in Eliot's novels, have free will but are born into unalterable circumstance and are affected by forces outside our control -- such as the choices of others and nature (as the characters of Eliot's The Mill on the Floss could tell us).
The balance of the book is very strong, however, and I particularly enjoyed the chapters on Whitman, Stravinsky and Woolf. The inseparability of body and mind, the neuroscience of music, and the construction of consciousness are all elegantly explored and explained.
The final chapter is a "coda" in which Lehrer expresses a wish for a "fourth culture" that will "freely transplant knowledge between the sciences and the humanities, and will focus on connecting the reductionist fact to our actual experience." He is very persuasive, and a desire to better understand how science can enlighten art and art can enlighten science is what led me to his book in the first place. I do find, though, that Lehrer can be too positive about the limits of science; he writes, "It is naive to think that science can solve everything by itself, or that everything can be solved." Too often I've seen in centuries-old writing the opinion that we would never discover something that today we have, such as what stars are made of and how they burn. I agree that there are limits to our knowledge now, and that art helps us delve through those limitations, but I do not think it follows that we will not someday understand and know what we don't today. I think it is better to say that art helps us to discover what we do not yet understand and know, and once those problems are solved, it will discover more. Art is the guide for our increasing knowledge, leading us to new paths of inquiry.
I do not agree with Lehrer on everything, but I value this book for that very reason. Where I disagree with him leads me to think things out for myself, and the fascinating work he does linking art and science inspires me to read more, to learn more.
headrook's review against another edition
2.0
This book was an exercise by the author, Jonah Lehrer, in bringing together art and science, suggesting that artists, through self examination of their own minds, were aware of aspects of the human mind far before scientists who follow conventional methodologies. The arguments for some of his points seemed a stretch by the author, but sound nonetheless. This book was an academic exercise in proving his points and was not a pleasurable or enlightening reading experience. (The most interesting chapters were the chapter on Walt Whitman and "The Substance of Feeling" and the chapter on Virgina Woolf and "The Emergent Self.")
thelibraryskeeper's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. This was my first taste of Lehrer's writing and I feel like, not only was it interesting, but it was also extremely educational. I feel like I learned so much.
nekreader's review
3.0
I picked this up during a period of reading about music and the human brain. I love the idea that science and the arts have something to say to each other, and this book is an enjoyable, if slightly uneven, read. I particularly enjoyed and remember the chapter on Stravinsky.
jackgoss's review against another edition
2.0
A lot of the brain stuff is interesting, but I completely failed to make many of the connections between the brains and the artists. Possibly, this is because I'm not familiar most of the works referenced. But I think that some of my confusion is because Lehrer didn't make convincing arguments or explinations. Some sections are more clearly spelled out than others.
George Eliot changed religions and believed in free will and one of her characters got married. Therefore: Brain plasticity. I can't connect those dots and I don't believe Eliot was the first person to understand free will.
I also don't believe that Gertrude Stein (who happened to be a neuroscience (or equivalent at the time)) discovered grammar. Or that the linguist Noam Chompsky confirmed the existence of grammar. Huh? I'm certain that everyone knew that grammar existed hundreds of years before either was even born. Clearly there was some deeper thing that Lehrer was getting at but whatever that was flew totally over my head.
The best parts were things that I'd already learned about on Radio Lab.
PS. Radio Lab is rad.
George Eliot changed religions and believed in free will and one of her characters got married. Therefore: Brain plasticity. I can't connect those dots and I don't believe Eliot was the first person to understand free will.
I also don't believe that Gertrude Stein (who happened to be a neuroscience (or equivalent at the time)) discovered grammar. Or that the linguist Noam Chompsky confirmed the existence of grammar. Huh? I'm certain that everyone knew that grammar existed hundreds of years before either was even born. Clearly there was some deeper thing that Lehrer was getting at but whatever that was flew totally over my head.
The best parts were things that I'd already learned about on Radio Lab.
PS. Radio Lab is rad.
audaciaray's review
4.0
A smart and quick read that got my arty brain thinking in more sciencey ways, and made me feel vindicated in viewing the world with multidisciplinary lenses.
That said, it also made me want to learn more about non-Western approaches to science. The way that "truth" is held in Western art and science is interesting, but also somewhat... circumstantial. Not to mention, so very much centered on Western thought and achievement.
That said, it also made me want to learn more about non-Western approaches to science. The way that "truth" is held in Western art and science is interesting, but also somewhat... circumstantial. Not to mention, so very much centered on Western thought and achievement.
jsisco's review
5.0
A phenomenal book that highlights the intersection of art and science, even going so far as to contend that the arts beat science to certain truths. A must read for my nerdy friends and anyone who is curious about the human condition.
Side note - my personal favorite was the chapter on Escoffier and the concept of umami.
Side note - my personal favorite was the chapter on Escoffier and the concept of umami.