Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
3 The Evolution of MIM Representation . . . ................................................... 30
3.1 A Historical Look at MIMs . ........................................................... 31
3.2 The Use of Color ....................................................................... 34
3.3 Crystal Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 37
3.4 The Transition to Cartoons ............................................................ 40
3.5 Technomorphism . . ..................................................................... 43
4 The Beauty of MIMs ......................................................................... 44
4.1 Topological Beauty . . . . . . .............................................................. 45
4.2 Architectural Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3 Simplicity and Elegance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.4 Complexity and Emergence . . . ........................................................ 54
4.5 Beautiful Mechanically Interlocked Molecular Machines and Switches . . . ......... 56
4.6 The Artwork of MIMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5 Conclusions and Perspectives ................................................................ 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1
Introduction
The unique bond, which is shared between chemistry and art, has been recognized
since at least 1860, when French chemist Marcellin Berthellot wrote: “La Chimie
cr
´
e son objet. Cette facult
´
cr
´
atrice semblable
`
celle de l'art lui-m
ˆ
me, a
distingue essentiellement des sciences naturelles et historiques,” which translates
in English to:
Chemistry creates its own object. This creative quality, resembling that of art itself,
distinguishes it essentially from natural and historical sciences.
Berthellot recognized that creativity not only distinguishes chemistry from other
sciences, but also assimilates it with art. But what is art? To attempt to define it is to
enter a realm that chemists, na
¨
ve as we are in these matters, had best avoid. We
note, nevertheless, that the Wikipedia [
1
] definition of art, “the process or product
of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions,” can be
truncated into a reasonably suitable definition for chemistry, “the process or product
of deliberately arranging elements.” The essence of creativity is indeed inherent to
both disciplines.
The similarities and differences between art and science have been long-
deliberated [
2
,
3
]. Foremost among these deliberations is the issue of beauty. Rather
than attempting to summarize or evaluate the numerous angles on the relationship
between science and art, let us simply draw attention to the philosophy that has
profoundly shaped modern notions on the subject of beauty in science, which stems
from the notion that science and art are different forms of symbolic activities.
Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel Prize winner in physics and proponent of this perspec-
tive, defined [
4
] beauty as “the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to
the whole.” He crowned mathematical beauty - unification through abstraction - as
the prevailing flavor of beauty in science. This ideal is noble but it is unfortunate
that it has reigned so exclusively; others have noted [
5
] the irony that chemistry, for
all its sensory content - its colors, odors, textures - is much less associated with
