back

developments

By Ernst Peter Fischer, a historian of science, I read the text "Genetics as Spiritual Science or: Explanations for the life that creates itself with the genes." I understand this text as a thought experiment that explains development processes in nature with the process of art ( painting / drawing, etc.) and understands nature itself as a creative artist. For the development of organisms, Ernst Peter Fischer suggests as a metaphor the human creativity that is expressed, for example, when painting / drawing a picture. Organic development and the process of art are comparable processes. This concept inspires me and this is the first and foremost reflection in my works.

Each painted picture undergoes a development. I understand development as a process, that is not cyclically-constant along and as a process with all its changes - this may include creation, interaction, change and decay.

Modern genetics understands, rational-analytic, the gene to be the causative factor, however it is nevertheless also a formative factor. " The aesthetic components of genes help clarify the term "form" with which one expresses that the genes form nature and vice versa nature forms the genes. Genes create and are created and this aesthetic unity of creation shows something of the process of creation."

" Thanks to genes, maybe we ( and other forms of life ) emerge in the same manner as the works of a painter emerge. During painting the process of creation begins with en idea ( mental image ) in the head of the artist. The continuation of the process then depends on the results that are visible on the canvas during the creation of the painting. As far as the embryonic development is concerned, the process commences with the given odds in the core of the cell and the further continuation depends on the creations which emerge in due course and are registered by the enviroment which lead back to the creating of and created life. Whoever describes the creator of

a painting, thereby seperating the creator from the creation ( maker from the made ) misses the point and this is exactly what applies to biological development. In their description one should not attempt to separate the creator from the created because the genes and their creations are constantly interacting. Genes do not reel off a programme, on the contrary genes play their part creatively. The entirety of the genes, that wich we call "genome"

is equipped with creativity."

It is suggested that one imagines the genes could paint and produce colours. " And they do this when living organisms succeed in making themselves the creating and created beings. In order to link this artistic performance to scientific knowledge we must remind ourselves that genes allow a cell to produce proteins whereby we should take note that the principle of creative duality shows again that ultimately the genes make the proteins, the genes make molecularbiology. Proteins transport oxygen, they receive light, they move muscles, they digest ( decompose ) nourishment and much more. A special class of protein has the characteristic of coming into direct contact with the genes themselves. These are called "master proteins", simply because the production of other proteins are dependent on them." 

Developmental biologists have established: " That on the one hand all organisms have at their disposal a store of master proteins ( and corresponding genes ) that appear during the early stages of development and through their pattern of activity determine what will become of these particular cells. With this store of master proteins one can build patterns which one could call a fabric and whose form in the course of growth is gradually refined and perfected - exactly like the painting of a picture." The pattern is subject to constant change, just as in the painting process a form develops with every stroke of the brush.

" The british biologist Enrico Coen suggested that one imagine the master proteins to be

the hidden ( inner ) colour with which the painting begins to live. The decisive factor which enables the comparison between the painting and the growth lies in the interaction. The colours come from the genes and influence them. Accordingly the colours on the canvas originate from the painter to whom it reacts, and in both cases the actors do not act freely but in accordance with historically determined factors. The painter / artist is influenced and formed by time and his culture and the genes carry their evolutionary history within themselves."

Is it not wonderful and fascinating, at the same time, how in nature the tiniest genes and cells are constantly changing from one condition to the next, thereby creating ultimately plant or being? Nature is equipped with creativity. The basis above all are the forms which the genes create because we like them. We speak about the beauty of nature, of the artwork of live. " Thereby it is not about mere knowledge, but about another way of dealing with our knowledge and ignorance." ( Bernhard von Mutius ) 

 

 

 used literature:

 

1)  Ernst Peter Fischer - physicist, biologist and historian of science,

    " Genetics as a science or humanities: Explanation for the life that

    creates itself with genes."

 

2)  Bernhard von Mutius - social scientist and philosopher,

    " The other intelligence - how we will think tomorrow "

    Klett - Cotta, Stuttgart 2004