A Natural History of the Senses One theory about artistic creation is that extraordinary artists come into this

world with a different way of seeing. That doesnt explain genius, of course, which has so much to do with risk, anger, a blazing emotional furnace, a sense of esthetic decorum, a savage wistfulness, lidless curiosity, and many other qualities, including a willingness to be fully available to life, to pause over both its general patterns and its ravishing details. As the robustly sensuous painter Georgia OKeeffe once said: In a way, nobody sees a flower really, it is so small, we havent timeand to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of the Senses, page 270 This quotation, selected from a segment called The Painters Eye in the Vision chapter, captures the essence of the book and, to a large extent, of life itself. A main theme of the book is to appreciate the little thingsto realize the amazing way in which our senses connect us to the world. For example, without the ability to smell, we could not recognize the aroma of freshbaked cookies or the perfume of a loved one in a hugthings we may take for granted now. Extraordinary artists are aware of the world in a way that many others are not because they make themselves fully available to life, to notice the exquisite details as well as the big picture. However, their curiosity delves deeper than the superficial exterior of life; it is their angle on it their anger and emotionsthat shines through the paint/clay/medium of expression. Paintings often evoke a feeling (anger, joy, etc.) in viewers. Georgia OKeeffe, who painted many flowers in detail, further emphasizes the point that people miss out on the small wonders of life because they do not pause and notice them. In a way, this is similar to the scientific process. How often do researchers study something for years until someone realizes that a small, vital piece of information has been overlooked? This is why scientists strive to examine every tiny bit of data; nothing should be dismissed as a fluke.

Scientists too are artists, trying to find meaning to life by exploring how and why things happen. By knowing the details, we further our understanding of the main idea. Science is commonly thought of as a cold, impassive world, devoid of emotions, but J.D. Watsons Double Helix disproves that theory. Most scientists at the time believed that proteins were the key to understanding life, and that DNA was of lower importance, but Crick and Watson took a risk, seeing the flower when no one else took the time. Watson was so curious that he gave up his original study of myoglobin to pursue his true interest in DNA. The book is filled with emotional ups and downs as the researchers explore a detail that leads to a dead end, or progress is made by their main competitor, Linus Pauling, a scientific giant who was also working on the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick made many decisions based on their instincts, considering every small detail to see if it fit with the big picture. They explored various helical structures and attempted many models. After much frustration through their tumultuous journey, analyzing DNA in a number of different ways, they finally crafted a model that satisfied all the evidence. By seeing the problem from a unique angle and demonstrating genius qualities, Watson and Crick created a scientific masterpiecea true work of art.

Double Helix You would have thought that with all their talk about genes they [geneticists] should worry about what they were. Yet almost none of them seemed to take seriously the evidence that genes were made of DNA. This fact was unnecessarily chemical. All that most of them wanted out of life was to set their students onto uninterpretable details of chromosome behavior or to give elegantly phrased, fuzzy-minded speculations over the wireless on topics like the role of the geneticist in this transitional age of changing values. J.D. Watson, Double Helix, page 74 This quotation expresses Watson and Cricks frustration that few scientists acknowledged their research as an essential key to life. They dismissed it as inferior and allowed themselves to be satisfied with the simple awareness of DNAs existence, instead of attempting to truly comprehend it. A good scientist exhibits those qualities of genius discussed in the previous quotation (risk, angerravishing details. Ackerman 270) and is not satisfied with a basic grasp of the topic; he strives to get to the bottom of anything that has not previously been explained. As Watson states earlier in the book, when discussing scientists skeptical feelings on DNA, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid (14). Such scientists do not illustrate the principles of scientific study, as science is the practice of understanding the world around us. To be content with not understanding is a habit that is difficult to break. Yet, students everywhere mindlessly memorize information, from vocabulary terms to lab procedures. They then spew it back on tests or blindly repeat instructions in the lab. They go on discussing and explaining things without bothering to learn how and why each step is necessary. Like the geneticists in the quotation, they are satisfied with simply knowing enough to get by, without the

unnecessary details. Because they only need to know about the gene, they see no need to investigate the DNA. Again, this quote addresses the significance of the little things in life, a point that is reiterated numerous times in Diane Ackermans A Natural History of the Senses. We enjoy various pleasures in life. However, we do not always pause to consider why we enjoy these things. Why do certain chords cause us to feel certain emotions, while other chords just sound unpleasant, like the notes shouldnt be combined? For most of us, these thoughts are unnecessarily profound; we either like what we hear or we do not. We do not contemplate the individual senses that make up our experiences. For example, when we think of our mother, we actually think of all the elements that make her up: her appearance, her smell, her hugs, her touch, her voice, etc. We could go on talking about all the things she does for us, but how often do we stop and think about the way her perfume smells? The tone of her voice? All these minor components are crucial in our perception of something, so we should remember to reflect on their value instead of stopping at the surface or main idea.