Art history could be written as a reflection of ever-changing societal perceptions. Human nature replicates outer nature in the form of cycles and extremes. The fluctuations of human nature in its extremes in ideologies have been present in any given paradigm of social interaction. Since its obscured revelation in the Classical Greek era, certainly science has came to represent one of those extremes that has been ever present. The search for the rational, the logical, the indisputable, the objective, has driven mens minds to questioning long before the criteria for observation without bias that science has adapted from those first sciences, philosophy, theology, astrology, and alchemy. Human kind was beginning to take steps toward a different kind of understanding. The commonly acceptable or universally true became subjective personal definitions opposite polarity. If we are to understand science, and thus technologies, far reaching implications, we must first discern sciences part and appropriation of our tools and methods to understand our outer environment and inner selves. Art, like science, is highly influential to both realms. Unlike science, art has always and can only reflect these two different realms of reality. The scientific, the concept of the concrete, or the emotional and the manifestation of the fleeting.

The scientist and the artist have always had similar goals, but only artists (because they encompass both extremes) are allowed the infinite possibilities of decision making due to the constant flux in the solution, as where sciences solutions, as well as its methods, are fixed. Both seek to make a stand or ask a question of the societal perceptions of their time. Whether the artist or scientists are aware of this is irrelevant. Scientific discovery and any given work of art are standing testimonies to these perceptions. Scientific method can parallel accepted aesthetic traditions for conceptually describing direct observations.

It wasnt until the Renaissance (early 16th century) that the two seemingly separate fields of science and fine art linked temporarily under the philosophical movement of humanism. Freshness was rediscovered in mans abilities. He saw and understood more of the universe around him. He saw potential for his creations enhancing and transforming the natural. For example, man can not control wind but Di Vincis first concepts of helicopter and parachute illustrates mans creations taking advantage of such seemingly chaotic exterior forces, as before in history, exterior forces left man at a disadvantage both in comprehension and application. A stream of revitalization of the prowess of man emerged, as he could use his tools to see further into space, as more elements were discovered, as he began to understand more about his own anatomy and mind. This revival penetrated most philosophy, literature, and the arts of the time. The literary works of Dante and Patrarch, and the masterpieces of Giotto are shining examples of mans realization, that with the tools of his own creation could educate himself and others. How much more clearly he could explain, portray, and relate the world around him, be it through proofs and theorems, literary symbolism, or through realistic representation on a two dimensional surface.

The aesthetic traditions set in place by the late masters of the Renaissance benefited from science by applying a logical approach to representation. By following how the eye sees objectively, elements of spatial depth were more closely observed than ever before. Linear and atmospheric perspective, overlapping form to imply distance, and a unified light source were able to be replicated two dimensionally by following rather scientific observation and an increase in the understanding in the anatomy and function of the eye. Although such devices for portrayal of the common outer environment were less than quick to catch on, eventually they became the academic standard of transforming the real world into the visual image. The concept of the retinal image as the most realistic, and thus true to life, representation of an object or person has never left western art completely. These elements of convincing depth and realistic portrayal were paralleled by the increase in mans need to understand things free from subjective bias.

Although this common knowledge may seem obscure when regarding the modern technological advances of the 20th century, but it was these first attempts in art to express reality without highly subjective elements of stylization, symbolism, distortion, or abstraction, that any objectively logic driven format of visual representation has built upon. As scientific observation can only build on itself, be it in the form of foundation or rebuttal of the established, so art could only use the academic standards set forth in the Renaissance as a foundation for elaboration or removal. Cezanne and the Impressionists studies of how the human eye actually perceives light, and thus color, led to more elaborate systems of space and structuring of the picture plane as with Picasso and Cubism and Malevich and Supramatism. Each of these subjective explanations to an objectively occurring outer reality followed closely the scientific method and direct observation of how the eye/mind interprets the common environment. It was these attempts to portray reality as it is with use of objective structure and/or principles that countless modern movements have built upon.

As science spawned the inventions of our use, convenience, and more recently entertainment, (called technology) it would more than a monumental task of parallels and organization to decipher technologies full impact on art. Technology supersedes science by means of application. Surely the invention of the light bulb by Thomas Edison was possible due to scientific observation of electricity, current, and the periodic table, it is easy to see how the once scientific was put to subjective use through the lighting in our architecture today. We have soft light, gallery light, and colored light, all to serve our personal preferences. The technology of the light bulb enabled painters to work indoor at anytime of the day with increased clarity of color and less strain to the eye than candlelight. This seems far removed from the technology of the increasingly cheap and efficient printing press, or even a further stretch to the science of electromagnetism, in the technological form of radio or television bandwidths. But it was these foundational elements that led to our current popular western culture and thus Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and other Pop artists. Enter the technology of the silicon chip and electro-circuit. Enter the works of contemporary artists like Peter Halley or Nam June Paik.

Artists make use of and respond to the tools and methods of his invention simply because they express his vision of an external worlds necessities. Technology can only express mans effort to harness the power of the natural and enhance or manipulate it to his convenient disposal. Man is able to harness the power of the natural only through rigorous scientific testing and direct observation. Artists observe and therefor have benefited from both the realms of science and technological innovation from its earliest precepts. Technologies impact on todays western society and thus its spokesman and commentator, the artist, has wrought technology and its appropriator science, into an innate state of perpetual and building influence, that reaches toward mans every direct observation of the world surrounding him.