A good physicist simply must have a point of view.  If one were to ask a lab full of scientists what they were doing, there would be many answers, ideas, theories, explanations and a narrowing down of the narrowing down of the realm of all possible ideas to a very particular area in which the work was being done.  Without a point of view, there might not be a project to work on.

    If one were to ask Lilly Tomlin’s character, Edith Ann, “What are you doing?”, she might rock back and forth a few times sticking her tongue out onto her upper lip before saying, “Nothing. What are you doing?.”  Though she said she was doing “nothing”, a physicist could write at length about her actions, the energy in her swinging legs being transferred to the motion of the rocking chair, and her cognitive process of mulling over the meaning of the question, etc.  There might be evident in this the difference in point of view between the scientist and the little girl character.  Science is a way of seeing as much as an activity.

    If that lab full of scientists were to answer “nothing” as to what they were doing, there would likely be an investigation following the statement and there would most likely be an upcoming budget very similar to this (nothing).  Part of the work of physics is to have something that one is working on and something one is aiming toward.  Within the formation of these specifics and the narrowing of the particular point of view, there may be a phenomenon by which the entire realm of investigation is diminished as to virtually eliminate 99% of the possibility of actually looking for an answer.

    Though there is this need for point of view and specific aim in science, the elimination of possibilities that do not fit into the chosen parameters is a grave handicap to the work.

Whether it is a steadfast holding onto the notion that the universe began from one single spot; that the universe is expanding (faster and faster); that the speed of light is constant; that gravity comes from folds in space/time; or that certain microwaves must be coming from the big bang, the cutting off of other possibilities, ideas, theories, models and visions is leaving an immense array of disapproved avenues of exploration.  While scientists will say very firmly that it is unknown what Dark Matter is, it is typical that it is “known” enough to warrant large budgets for research projects as if it were known in some ways.

    In my work, it has been difficult for me to hold a single point of view since my work, especially as an artist, is continually bringing up the unknown.  In terms of creative vision of graphic image, it is not necessary to refer to Neutrons, Neutrinos, Charge, Spin or Lack of Charge, etc.  There is a form, shape, color and image that is recreated in symbol form without the particular point of view about it necessarily being a limited one.  The vast array of avenues of interpretation and idea are left more open.  In fact, in my work, the avenues that are left blocked are the popular ones (the big bang especially) and all of the rest of the terrain is free for the hunting.

    While it is certainly true that many ideas can be relegated to the world of fantasy and metaphysics, this free playing about in the world of creative visions and ideas has proven to be a rich source of graphic illustration and interpretations of the world of physics.

    The astrophysicists currently working at mapping the universe may be looking at very small details and peeking at things one pixel at a time with no real thought given to what the entire picture is going to mean.  One day, some artists drawing or sculpture might just click in their minds as a real possibility about where everything came from and what it is all doing.  The relationship between art and science is not like one between architect and builder.  It is more free flowing and unpredictable, as art often is, and as science should be.