What happens when art and science come together?

Can there be a relationship between art and science? Do they have anything in common and if so, what? Have they got anything to contribute to each other? What do artists have to say about science? What do scientists have to say about art?

What happens when art and science come together?

I often disagree with what is passed off as Art/Science. Certainly it will be a combination of art and science with the goal of telling us something about a world beyond our perceptions. Has this not always been the goal of artists and scientists such as Dürer, Leonardo da Vinci, Picasso, Galileo and Einstein? The bringing together of art and science will have to be accomplished by artists with more than a passing knowledge of science – and vice versa. In the end, I think it will combine incredible advances in computer technology with science, and artistic concepts such as beauty – so that artists might be able to manipulate visual images as if they were … equations! Surely all this touches on fundamental issues in art, science, technology and education in the 21st century.

2 thoughts on “What happens when art and science come together?”

  1. Is Art is the science of human expression? There is certainly a kind of “standing on the shoulders of giants” methodology to it; it does not stand for repetition, and there is often a well constructed argument behind the creation. Is Science the art of systematically consolidating information? Both have elements of consensus building, and creativity, and methodological constraint, and both can be subject to leaps of imagination. Perhaps you are correct and in the end artists might be able to manipulate visual images as if they were equations. The mathematical language we have constructed to allow us to conduct science is often seen as inaccessible. If computers can allow us to transcend the mathematics and work with accessible forms that anyone can manipulate, but that are constrained by the computer to maintain all that is already known about physical laws, then more people might be involved in the creative process. But will they understand their creations? Does that matter? Does this situation illustrate the distinction between the essence of Art and Science?

  2. Art and Science coming together, the Mona Lisa suggests the best metephor. I believe da Vinci’s science allowed him to paint as he did.. Have you ever looked at his painting Lady with an Erimen? Look closely to see what is there, but mostly look for what is not. Look at the hand of the “woman” look at the arm of the ermin. Artists are scientists, they must be. Art suggests that something needs to be communicated, needs to be explored. Art askes questions, as does science. Look at what the “piece” does and does not say. The “Art” may make the direct statement of intended communication, or it may allude to a suggested realm. As scientists well know, their work is seldom completed by a “proven work”, the proven work is in fact a part of a labyrinth, it may be added to by the individual or subsequent scientists may join in the “walk”. This is a methodology that is inherent to all creation. We as humans strive to create. I believe creation is gifted with convergance, this process tends to remove ego and allows the reflection of more than one mirror. True academia, as scientific method is a new concept. Linear modes of communication expression are also relatively new. My first creative realm was propably one of alchemy. I am a retired clay artist and potter. My “science” is mostly empherical. I do not speak the language of math. “Science” is something that is always around us. Artists must embrace this concept, if they do not, their work is merely craft. Scientists must learn their “craft” as well. If they poorly “craft” their science, they will waste time and therefor have less time to persue their “art” which is the thing that dances in their minds, and occupies at least one small corner of all waking and sleeping thought. Some things must be “birthed”, I have some theories as to why a particular person at a particular time is the receiver of the idea, however, these are not scientific ideas., whenever I happen to be the receiver, I know that ego is best left outside, driven purpose in that regard, always halts the process of creating. I can also tell you that I as a dyslexic writer, have already encountered a “computer science” that allows me, the illiterate artist to use it to my best advantage. My spelling is so horrible you would not be able to read my words without this scientific advancement. Many individuals rely on language “adapters” I think we have a great living scientist that would agree with that. On the convergance note, I would like to suggest goiing to the MIT website, a Poet, named Elizabeth Goldring, has created a “seeing machine” she is functionaly blind. Her colaboration with visual researchers is remarkable. This is not only art and science meeting, it is humanity at its best. She gives me inspiration as I try to “see” through my dyslexia. All forms of communication are equally important to discovery. Penetrating any barrier to communication is science or is it art? If you remove the lines that have been drawn by academia and the egos that hold them there, our unified knowledge base might look like a sponge. This little creature has been given a great place in science lately. The MIT site offers much to dyslexic artistic poets looking for new thoughts and ways to encorporate them.

Comments are closed.