
doi: 10.1162/leon_a_00903
The author aims to compare the ways we interpret images in art and in science. The author suggests that, in art studies, analogy is often used, whereas in natural sciences, researchers appeal to abduction. To illustrate this assumption, she uses some critical texts about Yves Klein’s Anthropometries, as well as some ethnographic reports of scientists’ shop-talks around images, collected in a pharmacology laboratory.
[SHS.HISPHILSO] Humanities and Social Sciences/History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences
[SHS.HISPHILSO] Humanities and Social Sciences/History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
