WHITE coats and brown shoes are not the obvious hallmarks of a fashion
victim. But despite apparent indifference to matters sartorial, scientists do
not escape the fetters of contemporary fashion. 鈥淭hey are slaves to style like
everyone else,鈥� says Martin Kemp, professor of the history of art at the
University of Oxford.
Kemp has studied the way scientific instruments and publications have
changed over the centuries. 鈥淚t鈥檚 told me that a fair proportion of scientists
are more concerned with questions of presentation and image than they might
admit,鈥� he told the British Association鈥檚 annual festival of science in
Birmingham this week.
Scientific paraphernalia is no less informative than art as a mirror of
passing ages and cultures, says Kemp. 鈥淚t tells you who made something, who paid
for it, how it was received by society and how it was used.鈥�
Advertisement
Artefacts from the Renaissance, for example, are extremely decorative,
embellished with classical figures and fancy work that reflects a 鈥渓uxuriance鈥�
demanded by the aristocratic patrons of science at that time. Books from the
period are equally extravagant, adorned with rich and detailed
illustrations.
By Victorian times, however, artefacts are 鈥渞emorselessly sober鈥�, reflecting
a shift from aristocratic to institutional patronage. Most instruments, for
example, are made from fine brass and mahogany, but they have none of the frills
of Renaissance relics. 鈥淭he artefacts are beautiful, but purely functional,
reflecting solid worthiness,鈥� says Kemp.
Likewise, the books of that period reflect the stress on function. Kemp says
the first edition of Gray鈥檚 Anatomy, published in 1857, was one of the
鈥渕ost boring鈥� books ever printed. But the simplicity of presentation made
Gray鈥檚 Anatomy and books like it easier to produce for a growing mass
market as interest in science broadened beyond the dilettante.
Nowadays, scientists are likely to submit to a fashion for illustrating their
work with stunning graphics and other forms of imagery made possible by
computing power. 鈥淚f you look at Gray鈥檚 Anatomy today, it is full of
computer graphics so it is much more `space-age鈥�,鈥� says Kemp. Likewise, modern
molecular biologists would not dream of submitting scientific papers that were
not illustrated with the latest computer images of molecules, even if older
representations such as ball-and-stick models would be just as clear.
Instruments have become stark, functional and ugly, reflecting the demands of
today鈥檚 sponsors of research for economy and a no-frills approach. The elaborate
images from instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope are where today鈥檚
scientists make visually powerful statements, showing their paymasters that they
are getting value for money.