"Perhaps the greatest work of abstract art to date is the periodic table. I think it must be, by far, although I don't believe that it is recognized as a work of abstract art. It is certainly abstract enough. All of those symbols of atoms. And the atoms themselves, to which the symbols refer, are not all that un-abstract themselves. And the juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated things, F then Ne then Na! The thoughtful, knowledgeable viewer, observing the periodic table will experience such a wealth of ideas, of patterns and processes. How is this in any way unlike abstract art? Is it because the original evidence for the periodic table came from experiment? Perhaps the entire physical world is housed within it, mysteriously, deeply, with an incredible variety of patterns and themes interrelating its objects. There is room within it to construct every mountain range and room also to make the most delicate living forms. Like most sources of modern art, if you are not in the know, the most wonderful relationships will go unnoticed." -- Bob Jacobs, "Why Every English Classroom Should Have a Periodic Table?"
(no subject)
(No, I did not root for Francis Dolarhyde when he ate the Blake watercolour, so there! ;) )
(no subject)
(no subject)
Somewhere I read an article about how the chart would be even better if they hadn't been hung up on "noble" gases at the time -- it was about how bias can be present in the hard sciences, I think. Can't find it on Google, but the Wikipedia discussion page I ran across is interesting anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Periodic_table/archive_1
(no subject)