What Nabokov’s butterflies can teach us about science and art
Butterflies, bioart experiments, and why the liberal arts matter again.
I’m not exactly sure where I first came across this quote attributed to the novelist, Vladimir Nabokov. A few months ago, perhaps, but I’ve been ruminating on it ever since.
“There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts.”
Best known for his 1955 novel, Lolita, Nabokov was also an avid entomologist, specifically in lepidoptery which is the study of moths and butterflies. He discovered and named several species and reputedly wrote Lolita while chasing butterflies in the American West for his collection.
Butterflies wove into his prose as symbols of fragility and transformation, but it was arguably his work as a butterfly taxonomist that made him a better writer. One can only assume that obsessive attention to detail and sharpened observational skills influenced his ability to express nuanced and textured descriptions in his fiction writing. On the science front, his literary mind gave him the vision to propose theories of evolution. He may have truly embodied that rare communion between science and art like no other literary writer.
When Nabokov published his papers in the 1940s about the evolution and migration of a group of butterfly species known as Polyommatus blues, he was met with skepticism by the scientific community. But, more than six decades later, his theories were confirmed by a study done by a group of butterfly experts using DNA sequencing techniques.1
To fancy something is to spin a web of imagination, almost as if to materialize fantastical truths. Science requires creative vision and imaginative thinking to make certain leaps in theoretic hypothesis. Long before direct evidence could be confirmed through telescope or microscope, scientists used their intuition, often inventing new languages to envision truths not yet seen—think Einstein's theory of general relativity, black holes, or the twisted double helix of DNA modeling.
But can art exist without facts?
There are, of course, the obvious connections: math and music, lightwaves and color theory, and more niche contemporary art practices like bioart that utilize living organisms and biological processes as a medium. But there will always be endless debates on whether or not art requires technique, knowledge of art history, or even intention. The only thing we can agree on is that art is subjective.
Subjective interpretation aside, human experience shapes how we perceive and interpret art. This is a fact—perhaps the “fact” that is centered on the art equation of Nabokov’s quote. Human emotions arise from human experience and that reality grounds the idea that art requires an understanding of the world even if you wish to subvert it.
I sometimes wonder why science and art are often seen as opposing disciplines. We’ve been conditioned to regard the two realms as adversaries, that the rift between artistic intuition and scientific reasoning is wide when in reality they are interconnected and both rooted in observation and inquiry. Art and science are just two different expressions of how we see the world.
This institutional conditioning starts young and is the beginning of the squashing of childhood wonder. Cultural narratives often make us choose one or the other, as if an artistic life with a scientific passion is not only incompatible, but unfeasible if one wanted to pursue both at expert levels.
Both of my kids enjoyed a science and arts-filled curriculum in their early academic lives, but then chose one lane in college when they were required to take a sequence of classes for a degree (hint: it wasn’t in the arts). But while math and science fulfill requirements they need to earn that diploma, it’s classes like the philosophy on the meaning of life, that one-off sculpture course, or meditations on our relationship with nature that they’ll remember long after they graduate.
My own academic career was on the opposite end of the spectrum and highly specialized in art and music, and later in creative technology in graduate school. Hindsight is hindsight, but I wish now that I had taken literature and philosophy classes, or even a class in botany. But it’s never too late to learn.
I remember standing with my artist daughter in front of didactic panels next to a piece at the MIT museum a few years ago and watching the light turn on in her eyes. I think one of the greatest pleasures of being a parent is to witness that spark when academic classroom learning connects to real-world application. We were at a STEM exhibit about genetics, but the show was highly visual and curated like an art exhibit.
She learned right then that art critiques the ethicality of how science is integrated into our society. In that moment, she understood that science and art did not live on opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum, but is rather a mirror held up as two separate, but complimentary approaches to exploring the world.
This is why I have always been a proponent of a liberal arts education and even more so now in this rapidly changing AI world. I’ve touched on this before. It’s understandable why the humanities have taken a hit in favor of technical and pre-professional degrees. Unclear job outcomes and the price of a college education have skewed the popularity of some majors and even shuttered whole departments. But what might have been considered safe degrees are not really safe anymore.
Knowing the facts may no longer be enough. We need to interrogate, question, and learn how to think about the facts. Interdisciplinary thinking is crucial for solving complex problems with the understanding of how ethics and culture are interwoven. Empathy and emotional intelligence is how we’ll contend with disinformation, apathy, and increased polarized public discourse. All of this comes from the study of human society, the arts, and culture.
We need scientists who are dreamers as well as thinkers, who believe in the possible as much as they trust in data and research. We also need artists who can make us feel. Human emotion is the force that will move us from passive observer to active participant in a world that is spiraling toward unsustainable futures. This is how we prepare our students not just to be workers, but also engaged citizens.
Related reading
A very art and science roundup of links
To read:
Memories without brains. Certain slime moulds can make decisions, solve mazes and remember things. (Aeon)
“Once on the verge of being forgotten, P polycephalum is now recognised as a valuable model organism in behavioural biology. Some researchers have even explored it as an unconventional computer, showing how it could perform processing tasks and mimic electronic components.”
This is…amazing??Science on the catwalk: Iris van Herpen gives gowns a glow up Microorganisms, materials and movement inspire high-fashion dress designs. (Nature)
I first saw Iris van Herpen’s creations at The Met a few years ago. But to see a static photograph or even the clothing displayed on a mannequin falls short of honoring her artistry. Her creations need to be seen in movement.NASA to grow habitats in space for explorers using bricks made from mycelium (Designboom)
Mycelium may be going to space! It makes sense though. Rather than hauling building materials, why not grow it where you need it?When Is “Recyclable” Not Really Recyclable? When the Plastics Industry Gets to Define What the Word Means (ProPublica)
It’s really disheartening when you know the bulk of what we think is recyclable is just going to end up in landfills.This New York City island was once a military base. Now it’s becoming a climate solutions hub – in pictures (The Guardian)
We’ve been visiting Governors Island since it opened to the public almost 20 years ago and have watched with interest, the development over the years. Sure, some stuff like the glamping spots and spa (which…uh, I kinda want to check out, no lie) feeds into social media posturing, but there’s lots of other programming too: artist residencies, an urban farm, an oyster reef restoration project, and soon, the campus for the New York Exchange Climate Exchange.
An exhibition worth seeing if you’re in NYC:
Hilma af Klint: What Stands Behind the Flowers (MoMA)
Swedish artist, Hilma af Klint, was a pioneer of abstract art, but between 1919 and 1920, she spent summers painting flowers in watercolor. Botanical art isn’t groundbreaking, but af Klint makes it distinctively hers with the accompaniment of her geometric grids and abstractions.
To watch:
Ruth Asawa exhibition celebrates her influential art and extraordinary life (PBS News Hour)
Mother, art educator, artist. Looking forward to catching Asawa’s retrospective exhibit when it comes to MoMA this Fall.
https://mann.library.cornell.edu/events-celebrate-nabokov-as-butterfly-scientist
You are speaking of complementary opposites that, when they work together toward a unified purpose, magic happens, so to speak. But when they stay separate, they wreak havoc much like a free radical. It's all physics. It's also a favorite thinking pastime of mine, so it's a joy to see others making the connection. Thank you. Been wanting to thank you for some time - I enjoy your entries more than most.
Thank you for walking with me this morning- what a gift to spend time with you!