Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Is Art Antonym for Science?
Two days back while I was searching for synonyms and antonyms for some words on internet dictionary sites, I was shocked to see that on some of them art was given as an antonym for science! The gray cells of my brain went into intense activity immediately and started analyzing scientific and artistic sides of my personality and mind to see whether there was any truth in it.
Although science and art are dealt in two different ways, developed and evolved as two separate fields, they are coming together again in recent times. Art and science are related in several ways ( please read my thoughts on this subject here: http://kkartlab.in/group/scienceart ). According to old misconceptions, creativity comes mostly from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts originate in the other part of the brain (there are different theories that are coming out about functions of different parts of the brain in recent times, and the left part for science and right part for art is not actually correct according to these and whole brain works at different degrees in all most everything we do). Left brain or right brain works doesn't mean they are completely opposite. Leonardo da Vinci disproved that these two fields are poles apart and couldn't be dealt with a single brain at the same time. It is my endeavour to prove that these two fields could be brought together and made to live in harmony in a single box of grey matter.
I can use all parts of my brain simultaneously without any problem. Even while creating art works, I can think rationally and logically. Science has influence on my art and art too has some influence on my scientific thinking. In my mind I don't see worlds of difference between these two fields.
Yes, science demands thinking at higher levels with logic and rationale. Creating art is easy and you walk here on a beaten track and the destination is preconceived in the mind of the creator. Scientific exploration is much more difficult and complex and one has to create new paths into unknown lands.
Although human emotions (yes, you can work in the field you love) come into picture in the scientific field - as is the case with all the ones where people are involved - they are not important at all like in the field of art. Therefore, a scientific mind tries to keep emotions at bay while working and this is important to clear the path while searching for truth and facts. It cannot allow emotions to fog the picture. A scientist cannot say " Because I love this - this is the truth!" or " Because I believe in this theory - this must be a fact!"
An artist has this luxury of emotions playing a major part in his work. He can push all rationale out of the window and say, " Because I love this - this is the truth and therefore I can create my work very beautifully!" He can live in a world of illusion or dreams if he wants. And there is no harm in it as long as his beliefs don't harm or affect others drastically. And in an emotionally charged right part of the brain creative sparks originate, develop and flourish.
A poet describes the moon as a beautiful object. An artist paints it in all splendid colours. An astrophysicist sees it as a natural satellite of earth with rocks and no atmosphere or life. When I think about moon as an artist, I feel happy because I could see it as an object of beauty - shining like a silver ball in the dark sky. And when I think about moon as a person from the field of science, I can still see the beauty of scientific theories like gravity, time, space and how wonderfully they are followed in this universe. Science too has a pretty view!
Now am I thinking as a creative person or as a person of rational thinking? Do these thoughts from different angles drastically change the perception of beauty? Not at all! These things don't have a clearly marked line between them in my mind! Then how can they be separate?! I feel these things are associated with human training of the mind. Your beliefs, dogmas, thoughts, opinions could have tremendous affect on how you perceive things in the art world. And science doesn't give you this choice. You got to see them in the true way in the latter case. With the right attitude you can see beauty of things both scientifically and artistically at the same time. You can think rationally about art too! Maybe I am lucky to be able to view the world from two different angles and still see the beauty of it all!
There is a leaf or a flower. An artist enjoys the beauty of it superficially - yes only superficially. A scientist takes the help of a microscope or a spectrometer and sees the inside beauty as well. Believe me the whole picture is more beautiful - as you go to cellular, molecular and atomic levels to understand it fully - you see more rhythm and beauty in the creations of nature. The experience of observing nature in its full splendor is more wonderful and thrilling. It is a new world. Trying to understand the world fully is a heavenly feeling. A scientist can see more in this world than an artist!
Although scientific way of seeing things is deep, it is only an extension or expansion of observing beauty artistically. I don't think these two are opposite ways. When artists try to draw pictures of what they see outside, scientists try to construct things that are deep inside. While artists see only a part of the picture, scientists see the whole picture!
An artist can close his mind whenever he wants and can still go ahead with his work (here "closing mind" refers to new thoughts, ideas and work of other people not about his own work or hand movements!!) but in Science if you close your mind, that will be the end of your journey! This is because in art people create isolated works of different types but in science most of the work is inter-dependent as we live in an universe that is governed by the same laws of Nature!
You can break rules ( formulated by some people although they are not absolute ones) while creating art and can still produce masterpieces and in science if you don't follow rules of the nature, disaster strucks and you will be doomed ( can you disobey laws of gravity etc. while sending rockets into space?!) .
Yes, in art you have more freedom than in science.
In Science your work speaks for itself and you but in art you got to speak for your art and promote yourself to succeed.
These differences are not big enough to make art antonym for science.
Has at any time a conflict occurred in my mind because of art and science residing side by side there? No. Never!
Drawing figures of all that I see and observe in the scientific studies, research and exploration is a part of my work. I never think or treat it as a different field or entity. It is a part of science! If drawing figures is also art - how can it be an antonym for science? I don't understand how anyone can throw these two into opposite sides and say science and art are antonyms for each other! People who can use their brains holistically can disprove this antonym myth.
Just because the left part of the brain is more active in scientists and the right part in artists, can we say they are opposite? It is the same brain ( or the same mind) that is working! A scientist can make the right part of his brain active too like I do and an artist can become a rational- thinking person. My mind and brain work as a single unit both when I am creating art and working on science problems. Maybe because I mostly create art works based on science and science is integral part of whatever I do, I don't see much difference. Yes, there are differences between how a scientist works and how an artist works but they are not completely opposite! My mind says: Battle of right brain vs. left brain? Why not use both?
Sorry, my rational and logical thinking mind doesn't allow me to put science and art on opposite poles. And I can say with confidence that anybody who tries to create rift between these two doesn't know how to use his or her brain the right way!
PS...
(Here, in this part of the world, people say when your works and deeds help others and the society in general in any possible way that is the right way of doing things. If they cause harm and ill will, that is the wrong way! Of course these are relative terms and definitions for right and wrong differ from place to place.)
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
Copyright © 2011
Views: 1728
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Stewart on
-
my pleasure dear Krishna...
have an eye-opening day ! :o)
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:Thank you. I will try to sort out everything soon.
-
Permalink Reply by Marcelino Ferreiro Paz on
-
Don`t imagine a mind without heart or heart without mind,
Don`t imagine science without art or art witout heart.
Seems to me, they are not antonyms, but complements.
Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by giulia occorsio on
-
This statement is very profound and poetic! I agree...
-
-
more from Robert Anton Wilson... helpful to see beyond the scientist-artist duality... hope you like it ! :o)
-
-
IN ARTS THERE`S MORE FREEDOM BECAUSE NOBODY WILL DIE IS YOU MADE A MISTAKE WITH A COLOR.
SCIENCE MUST BE PRECISE. NO SPACE FOR MISTAKES, WHEN THE FORMULA IS FINISHED. MEANHILE , DURING
THE PROCESS, BOTH USE ABOUT THE SAME METHODS.
-
-
Not Shouting!, Mr., just short sighted!, please!
To be honest, admiting the difference,see not much difference between cooking and making antibiotics.
It`s need to arrange the right staff that works. Trying ways,(sometimes casual), following steps...creating ...
Art & freedom are not as associated , for my point of view,
The best of Van Gogh & Goya, for instance, was before they commited suicide...
Let me know if we are not talking about the same matter.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
Exactly!You hit the bull's eye! As an artist I feel I am more free but don't feel the same while working with Science. In science you have limited freedom as you have to follow certain rules and face severe scrutiny and be able to withstand all the tests. I felt the heat more while presenting papers in seminars, symposiums and science conferences where people try to rip you apart. But if you are confident that you did the right thing and well read and well-versed in your subject, you need not worry about anything. Moreover, you have to keep in mind the welfare of living beings while working in science. Mistakes might cost lives. In that way, you have limited freedom. In art I can experiment in any way I want. Here nothing limits your freedom - except of course you have to keep the welfare of the society as the utmost priority in art too and in what ever field you are working.
Marcelino Ferreiro Paz said:
IN ARTS THERE`S MORE FREEDOM BECAUSE NOBODY WILL DIE IS YOU MADE A MISTAKE WITH A COLOR.
SCIENCE MUST BE PRECISE. NO SPACE FOR MISTAKES, WHEN THE FORMULA IS FINISHED. MEANHILE , DURING
THE PROCESS, BOTH USE ABOUT THE SAME METHODS.
-
-
Science has also its origins in the East long before it became popular in in the West! Science doesn't belong only to the West although it is in a more advanced state there!
There are three ways to treat Science. Pure Science, pseudo-science and anti-science! People are getting confused between these things.
If the prejudices of a scientist influence his work it is termed as pseudo-science and not pure science!
However, like I said before, rational minds too differ in their rationality but this is relavent only at theoritical stage! Once a scientist starts experimenting and he gets his results - provided he takes the precaution of taking all the parameters into account and doing things correctly - only thing that prevails is truth and pure science! Here the observer is not equal to object of observation! Several times what we think or expect before the experiment starts, doesn't get manifest into observations. We get completely different set of results! And we have to accept the truth! We cannot try to fit them into our prejudices if we want to follow the path of pure truth. How can an observer like me who gets results different from the ones I expected and had to accept them as truth becomes one with the object of observation? I had to change myself and my opinions to fit into scientific truths because I follow pure science and not pseudo-science!
These days it has become a fashion to interpret everything in the frame of science. We call it pseudo-science. Even religion and ancient medical and other practices are being interpreted as a form of science! Here the observer and the object of observation become one and the prejudices of observer influence the interpretation of results.
Everybody knows what anti-science is.
By the way I painted a picture on this very topic recently( Titled: Science, Pseudo-science and Anti-science). As soon as I get time, I will add it to my website and also here.
I don't accept anything until I give it a thorough thought and find that it fits into the frame of truth. Therefore I cannot give replies immediately like some people do. I need time to think.
Don't blindly accept and follow everything that is brought before you without giving it a thorough thought even if it is said by me - Buddha
-
-
How can an observer like me who gets results different from the ones I expected and had to accept them as truth becomes one with the object of observation?
getting the results one expects, and influencing the results, are not equivalent concepts...
in other words, it is entirely possible for one person to influence the results of experiments, and still at the same time not get the results they were expecting... it is not because one influences a phenomenon that they necessarily impose their will on it... the former does not imply the latter...
one well-known scientist in particular, Wolfgang Pauli, was apparently famous for « making experiments fail »... even to the degree that the term « Pauli Effect » has been coined to describe the phenomenon... Pauli himself considered the effect to be real, and some other people did not... one of his friends actually banned him from his lab for fear of the effect...
for more on the topic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_effect
that being said, have a lovely day ! :o)
-
-
With all this confusions, we don`t seem to want to get to a way of helping each other.
If you pour some blue an then red on top, color shoud be clearer, but is not, becomes violet.
When you pour little yellow on violet, should get some clearer colour, but all you get is black.
Comparing Chemicals with physics or Maths, makes no sense, they have a different behaviour.
Let`s point to solutions.
-
-
We need to make reference to pataphysics perhaps?
-
-
brand new for me, but if it is beyong metaphysics, smell something interesting.
Pataphysics means "beyond metaphysics", coming from the Greek [epi meta ta fusika], and the French ['Pataphysique, influenced by the pun on "patte …physique"]. It is the science of imaginary solutions that studies the exceptions rather than laws and aspires to provide imaginary solutions to practical problems. If physics is the study of what is and metaphysics is the study of what "what is " is, then pataphysics is the study of what "what 'what is' is" is.
Please, tell what you really think, acupunture uses no aspirine and works!
Badge
Birthdays
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
