Notes On Roald Hoffmann’s Lecture “One Culture,” Part 5

I hope this is the last post of notes from Roald Hoffmann’s lecture at the Nobel Museum, which was titled “One Culture: Or the Commonalities and Differences Between the Arts and the Sciences.”

I didn’t get the fourth question in the Q&A, but my notes are about the dull language of physics (as opposed to chemistry?), and how poetry can (could?) influence (the language of?) science, and vice versa. The power of language, of saying things simply. Hoffmann claimed to have become a better science writer because of being a poet. My notes here are obscure; says something about how he doesn’t violate norms, but practices (subtle?) subversion.

Then speaks about writer Elias Canetti, who won the prize in literature the same year as Hoffmann won the one in chemistry. Incidentally, Canetti also had a PhD in analytical chemistry.

Hoffmann asked Canetti about what his knowledge of chemistry had meant for his writing, and Canetti told him that chemistry gave him a sense for structure, for things built upon things, and also taught him to be a better craftsman.

More obscure notes. Hoffmann said something about there being “no child prodigies in chemistry,” but I didn’t quite get what he was saying. This was in the context of the importance for talent in science and the arts. If I interpret my notes correctly, he said that music requires talent (there are definitely child prodigies there), and also that math does. But is it less important in chemistry?

He continued on the subject of music and science, saying that many scientists perform music, but very few compose. Mentions Stravinsky, and how the root of any great music are things that are not of this world (as opposed in science where one struggles to make sense of the world?).

A few less interesting questions. One about the chemistry of paints that made me think of Vermeer in the movie Girl with a Pearl Earring: how paints were made from crushed glass, plants, snails, different animals, etc.

The next question was about poetry versus science, and about invention versus discovery in each of these – whether Hoffmann as a poet feels there’s an equivalent of discovery in science.

Hoffmann answered that the popular view of science is that it is mostly discovery, whereas that of art is that it’s mostly creativity. In reality, he said, “both are about both.” Chemists are engineers as well, “building bridges.”

Then talked about self-censorship. The idea that some science is harmful. For instance Andrey Sacharov, who created the H bomb and was proud of it; Hans Bethe, who was involved in making the atom bomb. Hoffmann thinks these are examples of where creation has taken over, where there’s no consideration of ethics. Also, there’s the idea that art can’t hurt, which Hoffmann said (several times during the Q&A session) is wrong.

Hoffmann finished by saying a little about discovery in art – that he thinks that it occurs, but that it’s different from in science. In this context he talked about ambiguity, which poetry is about, but which is bad in science.

There, all my notes:

• “Notes On Roald Hoffmann’s Lecture ‘One Culture,’ Part 1”
• “Notes On Roald Hoffmann’s Lecture ‘One Culture,’ Part 2”
• “Notes On Roald Hoffmann’s Lecture ‘One Culture,’ Part 3”
• “Notes On Roald Hoffmann’s Lecture ‘One Culture,’ Part 4“

See also Hoffmann’s essay in American Scientist: “Meissen Chymistry.”