One critical view is that Wright demonstrates a new “Enlightenment” version of the “Ages of Man” theme, from juvenile sentimentality through objective curiosity to scientific maturity. Stephenson takes every opportunity to attack this view of maturity, which separates feeling from intellectual curiosity, labelling the former as “childish”. Her characters agree that so-called “mature” objectivity in science is a fallacy. For example when Kate, the representative of corporate science, accuses Tom of being a hopeless romantic, he insists that her argument for the health utility of genetic therapy is itself a Romantic pretense blind to its own deep prejudices. (Air Pump p.89).
A second interpretation is that the direct, immediate gaze of the philosopher, as his hand is poised over the air valve, draws us as viewers into the scientific demonstration. We become complicit in the decision about whether, and when, to save the dove from asphyxiation. This challenge to the viewer to step in, as a deus ex machina, is used by Stephenson to alert her audience to our power and responsibility. Her use of a double time frame juxtaposes mistakes of the past with decisions pending in the future that demand immediate action. The jolts from one time frame to another create a two centuries wide montage of a world view in which science substitutes for religion. By starting her play with Ellen’s detailed deconstruction of Wright’s painting, Stephenson signals her intention dispute the Sublime experience it depicts. Ellen notes that the composition, placement and character of the Philosopher-lecturer is reminiscent of the Christ figure in religious paintings. With personal insight, she realizes that she has wanted to be God the scientist. At that moment she sees what sociologist Dorothy Nelkin has exposed in her book The DNA Mystique: the religious language with which corporate science cloaks its activities. Stephenson clearly wants her audience to join Ellen in questioning it. On closer examination of his painting, it appears that Wright’s Philosopher might also be in a divided state of mind.
Recently, art critic William Schupbach has pointed out that the glass jar on the table contains a skull and that the Philosopher’s right index finger is pointing at it in a warning about the inevitability of death despite scientific progress. This warning undermines and contrasts with the inner illumination, or “Enlightenment” of the rational pneumatic demonstration. Although she doesn’t refer to the skull, Ellen’s foreboding about the motives of genetic therapy echoes Wright’s warning.