I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people -- and to me too i believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I can see more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which also also have a beauty. There's beauty not just at the dimension of one centimeter; there is also beauty at a smaller dimension.

There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved to attract insects to pollinate is interesting; that means insects can see the colors. That adds a question: does this aesthetic sense we have exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

-- Richard Feynman, "What do you care what other people think?", Unwin Hyman, 1988.