Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Artists have to remove these misconceptions about science and scientists to build efficient bridges between art and science

After interacting with artists who are into science-art, participating in various discussions with them, reading what they write and listening to what they have to say about science and science-art, I came across these misconceptions about science and scientists among artists:

According to some artists, science cannot advance on its own and therefore need art to take it forward! ( Where is art all these days when science is taking us towards progress?) There seems to be an obsession amongst the science-artist community with trying to prove that art can definitely advance science and there can be no other way for science to advance but to tie up with art!

Scientists are divorced from the world and don't have imagination(Ref.1). To know why this is not true read this blog: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/tall-claims-and-failed-proof-of-s...
Scientists don't know how to go about their work. They don't know how to be creative ( the above blog says this is not true).
Scientists are in a hole and they don't know how to come out of it and artists want to help them come out of this pathetic situation.
Scientists don't know how to see their work in a different way. They are not at all creative!

Science is divorced from aesthetics ( read this blog which says why this is not true: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/how-science-is-associated-with-ae...

Scientists don't know how to communicate their work and fail to realize how artists are better communicators than them and can help them. Scientists again fail to realize how artists can help them in understanding science in a better and new ways. The professors in science failed to do this! ( First of all can artists understand science as well as scientists do to show it in a new light?!)

There is absolutely no difference between artistic creativity and scientific creativity ( which is not correct - please click on the link to know why: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/what-scientists-should-be-cautiou... )

Both artists and scientists think and do things in the same way.

There is no difference between art and science! (You can read here several differences listed by me: http://kkartlab.in/group/scienceart/forum/topics/differences-betwee... )

Scientists don't know how to understand and interpret art in the science-art arena and therefore cannot create good art and understand it! ( Scientists naturally take cues from artists on what art is all about and how to understand it. If they fail in understanding art, it is the art world that is sending the wrong signals!)

Science is free from criticism. There are no science critics like the art critics! ( Then what is peer reviewing all about? PR is criticism with a different name!) Don't journalists and social activists too criticize science?

Humanities way is the very foundation of human insight. To become humane, one needs humanities ( so science doesn't deal with insights of humanity! - to know why this is wrong, read this article of mine: http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/science-and-spir... )

The art-science divide is a false and dangerous one. False, because we all have both sides of our brains.

Yes, we all have both sides of brain. Yes, we have both sides of brain but how we use it is what makes the divide! So it is not false. The divide is 'not dangerous' but 'not very fruitful'.

Working with the arts will bring the senses back to science. ( http://symbiosisartscience.org/about/ ) - So artists think science's senses have taken leave!

If artists try to show science in such a bad light for their personal gains and to 'promote art' this is not at all good for collaborations!

If artists come to the science-art arena with so many misconceptions about scientists and science and a biased outlook, how can they build bridges between the two fields? In the SEAD white paper analysis, it was said that more singularly oriented ( confined to just one discipline ) individuals entering collaborative relationships need to maintain open mindedness allowing for ongoing adjustments of perceptions about partners' disciplines. Otherwise these collaborations might not succeed and end up in bitterness.

This blog is written to remove the misconceptions and help artists understand the field of science more accurately.

And I welcome similar articles from the artists' point of view.

References:

1. http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/art-aids-better-industrial-o...

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of SCI-ART LAB to add comments!

Join SCI-ART LAB

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 14, 2013 at 6:12am: http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/art-aids-better-industrial-o...
Art aids better industrial operations
The lead story on the front page of the Columbus Telegram on Monday, Sept. 9, was “STEM offerings focus of meetings — CPS will use meetings to gauge current status of programs, analyze their future.” I was hopeful that this headline included a typo but, alas, Columbus Public Schools is embracing STEM instead of STEAM.

“What is STEAM?” you ask. Well I am happy to enlighten you that STEAM is STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) with the Arts. I think Philip Horvath said it best (via Twitter on theSTEM website), “STEM without art has no steam. Without imagination we build technology based on what is not on what could be.”

STEAM is a movement championed by the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) and is gaining momentum. In fact, one of the many case studies on the StemToSteam website is the 43rd season of Sesame Street which began Sept. 24, 2012. The case study stated that “The iconic educational program has announced that it’s 43rd season will focus on integrating the arts into its existing STEM focus.”

The introduction was an 11-minute episodic segment entitled, ‘Elmo the Musical.’ I am the Sesame Street generation (I was 2 years old when it began) and I say that if Elmo believes that we need to integrate the arts with science and technology then America better listen.

The STEAMnotSTEM website claims: “The future of the US economy rests on its ability to be a leader in the innovation that will be essential in creating the new industries and jobs that will be the heart of our new economy. Where the US has historically ranked 1st in innovation it now ranks between 3rd and 8th depending on the survey. We have taken steps to reverse this slide by embracing and funding the much needed improvements in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) education. . . . The competitors for that leadership, such as China and many other countries in Asia and Europe, include vigorous Arts curriculum as a national priority in their public school systems and we must do the same.”

I know I am not supposed to believe everything on the World Wide Web (a State Farm commercial says I shouldn’t) but I truly believe in the importance of art education for everyone.

That's why I signed a petition to the United States House of Representatives, which says: "We encourage the support of House Resolution 51: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that adding art and design into Federal programs that target the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields encourages innovation and economic growth in the United States." There is a link on the Arts Council’s Facebook page if you agree with Elmo and would also like to sign this petition.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 8, 2013 at 6:13am: According to some artists: Integrating the arts into science education and communication will refresh and enliven science with creativity. Science requires precision, yes, and a rational process, yes, but Integrating the arts into science education and communication will refresh and enliven science with creativity. Science requires precision, yes, and a rational process, yes, but it can also be a messy, unpredictable, crazy, creative, playful process…. just like art. Working with the arts will bring the senses back to science. ( http://symbiosisartscience.org/about/ )

Aren't these statements contradictory? How can art bring back senses to science if -like the artist says - science is just like art? The artist doesn't explain! Again the artist thinks, science doesn't deal with creativity! A false assumption!

Again the website says:

The art-science divide is a false and dangerous one. False, because we all have both sides of our brains, and dangerous because in compartmentalizing, we cut off our selves and our culture as an integrated whole.

Yes, we have both sides of brain but how we use it is what makes the divide! So it is not false. The divide is 'not dangerous' but 'not very fruitful'.