Cosmology, Physics and Philosophy by Benjamin Gal-Or (review)

visual responses, such as illusions and movement effects that bring to mind the kinetic art begun by Duchamp. Some visual clues by which James and Eleanor Gibson have demonstrated human responses to depth reception are remarkably like those in paintings by Bridget Riley. The grids and gratings that fascinated scientists from Helmholtz, Chevreul and Blanc to Cornelius and J.J. Gibson have also been exploited in art: grids by LeWitt, Morellet, Warhol ,Jensen, Andre.johns and Kelly and gratings by Newman, Noland, Davis, Marden, Vasarely, Martin, Johns and Dubuffet. None of these artists was obviously influenced by the scientists, but the authors argue that "the artists' perceptual intuition of basic perceptual structures, combined with the generally accepted reductions and logic of modernism, brought them to a preoccupation with images paralleling those coming into prominence in visual experimentation ". Reviewing their thesis in a brilliant final chapter, the authors ask why modernism is so theoretical, citing the abundance of writings in all forms, from Zola to the artists and critics of the past three decades (Reinhardt , Motherwell, Bannard, Morris, and others). Their answer is that modernism is so theoretical because, obviously , science is so theoretical. The authors further clarify their theory of parallelism by relating it to other theories of modernist art: the formalist position, the social-cultural-historical determinant theory and the eclectic theory, as exemplified by Meyer Schapiro, who brought out formalist and perceptual characteristics in the context of an artist's life. To fill the lacuna in these theories of any connections with modern science, the authors offer their thesis as one that contains the interests of the others, but with special emphasis on science. Indeed, they make such a compelling case for their thesis that it is hard not to be convinced on every point. Of course, one never wants to give up long-held, classic interpretations and fall in so completely with a new one, even if it is rationally convincing. I would rather adopt an eclectic approach , myself, drawing their theory into an inclusive one, like Schapiro's. Nevertheless, I am convinced of their claim "that the conceptual framework of modern science, most especially of the science of vision, is a rich link 272 Current Literature that connects the perceptual to the formal properties of modernist art, and both of these to personal, cultural, and historical factors". COSMOLOGY, PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY by Benjamin Gal-Or. 2nd Ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, U.SA, 1987.522 pp., illus. Trade, $39.95. Reviewed fry P. T Landsberg, University of Southampton, Faculty 0/Mathematical Studies, Southampton S09 5NH, o.« My first task here is to attempt to relay what this book's subtitle indicates , for it announces, "Including a New Theory of Aesthetics", which must be of vital interest to readers of Leonardo. To tie this down, it is best to turn to the Preface, where the author speaks of the yearning for symmetry and for comprehension of nature as the most fundamental force behind the evolution of religions, philosophies , science and art. He hints that this is aesthetics, possibly the most fundamental of human yearnings. He also warns us of the human tendency to isolate and divide in theory that which is whole in the actual world. The philosophy of the whole he seems to call Havayism: "in the actual world everything is at one with everything else"-"no artistic mind is an island". This is evocative and stimulating. The sentiment is admirable, though not new, and one awaits more details of the new theory. But the book contains much else: aspects of astrophysics and classical and particle physics are covered, as are aspects of relativity, arrows of time, quantum physics and black holes (Parts I through 3). Philosophy is the main subject of Part 4, which brings us to the end of Volume 1. In Volume 2 we find a critique of Western thought, including discussions of structuralism, 'science and the media' and eventually the decline of the intelligentsia. There we have it. The author's attempt to take the whole of knowledge , past and present, by the neck, shake it and pack it into some kind of enveloping philosophy is nothing if not ambitious. He...