OCR Text |
Show 145 Scientists examine documents for their content; art historians examine works of art for content through their style. Separately, each view of Bodmer's aquatints is incomplete. It is perhaps not entirely accidental that the problems related to the interpretation of factual observation arise so dramatically with the examination of the images Bodmer produced for Maximilian. Historically, science and art share similar interests and questions regarding the "seeing" and the "knowing" of an event were debated vigorously by both in the early years of the nineteenth century. During these years, artists were stimulated by the rise of empiricism and showed renewed interest in the emerging objective methods of science (for which Maximilian himself is so admirably an early representative). The questions of vision and experience were of primary concern to both artists and scientists as Bodmer accompanied Maximilian on his expedition across America. Through the examination in chapter four of Tableau 37, The White Castles, the close relationships between art and science were explored. The collaboration of these two fields-and the ultimate synthesis of their separate quests-is encapsulated in the publication of Travels, a tangible, albeit imperfect, reconciliation of these ostensibly divergent fields. In order that we may accurately interpret the information contained in this work, both art and science must attempt to reconstruct specific situations. Both seek objective criteria by which this reconstruction can take place. However, the manner by which each accumulates information is too often based upon traditional research methodology, which, by its very nature, restricts the inquiry to its own field. As a result, a multitude of related information outside the particular |