SCI-ART LAB

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

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: 1298

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To see into a microscope reveal the wonderful word of microcosm: cells,bacteriums,blood,micro-organisms and others, are instruments for science such colours and brushs for an artist...

Giulia Occorsio

Exactly, everything is a form of art..even life itself..how we exist within the cosmos

48073 said:
Science is a form of art. But so is coocking, engineering, teaching, law, etc. To succeed a professional in any field needs to be an artist e.g. make use of their artistic qualities.

It is true, although Beuys said it better then me i guess.. 


Also, to have a peek into infinity, to touch the mystery of life, it could happen anywhere, any sudden moment, life teaching you... I agree, these moments connect us with our beliefs in God, Allah, Universe, Time/space, etc.


But: If everyone is an artist and everything is art, what is left for art itself?


Catherine sarah hislop said:
In my opinion science is a form of art
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! O f course these are relative terms and definitions for right and wrong differ from place to place.

Igor Eugen PROKOP said:

HI,

First of  all WHO  know how can we use our brains the  right way??!

Maybe oppenheimer also used his  brilliant brain....first time...but  later....?!

 

So, I'm biologist.artist....,though  I don't like the  expression: " Artist"....a little bit everybody  an artist in deepself any where....but  not every artist is a scientist....what's a Lucky!..

Absolutely  great  spectacle the world through the microscope.too...!

maybe  better if somebody know just what can see under the microscope....

...maybe not.....the Beauty  ..itself is wonder...still  the Art  and science ,together a little bit higher level of Life...I'm sure..

We know and see the all universe ONLY our's brain aspect...we can't understand  what's  happened a lot of animal's Brain..now..especially in the past...in the  evolutionary old time...maybe it 's very important  moment in all life in the Earth...independently the TIME...because all  living creatures in the Past and Now are connection Our Brain  too!!

What's come out from our "artist" brain or "Scientist" brain...all effects come trought the Evolution...and the  Evolution..the  earthy evolution come from the Big UNIVERSE...

After all ...all Artistic movement come from  a  higher level  organisations...therefore  every manifestations  in the same time  Artistic and  Scientific,Too. Depending on the educated levels....in  every fields...

If somebody learnt as like as a  Scientist...plus  learnt  Art,too....maybe has a possibilities in higher level  to give a more complex pictures from the world....?!....Maybe NOT!

 

Maybe  only the Big MONEY knows what's the Best way.....a lot of people thinking about it...but  I'm SURE it's a LIE!!

 

Nature !! First of all...

 

GOETHE said in his deadly bed:"More LIghts!!!"

 

Thank you, Christopher. Hello! I wrote this based on my own experiences - not assumptions. Can experiences be inaccurate?!! I really started wondering. Let me know how they can be. Experiences differ from person to person and based on these experiences, people get their opinions. Okay, I agree, analysing experiences can vary from person to person. And I would like to know how your assumptions & analysis based on your experiences  will be. It would be very interesting to know different ones from different people. It really enhances my knowledge in understanding the world from different perspectives.  But we cannot come to a conclusion on which one is correct  because it always depends on conditions in which they occur and how they are taken by people subjected to different conditions. Waiting for your reply.

 

 



Christopher Stewart said:

my short answer to this would be as follow :

 

« Einstein’s space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh’s sky. The glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist’s discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter imposes his; an order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is based on the observer’s frame of reference, which differs from period to period as a Rembrant nude differs from a nude by Manet. » — Arthur Koestler

 

and thus, in my view, in their essence, the artistic process and the scientific process shouldn't be considered as antonyms, inasmuch as they both are creative processes...

 

that being said, i say "shouldn't," because in my opinion, the two disciplines seem to have drifted apart in the general public opinion throughout the years... mainly because most people still think in terms of the classical, outdated, pre-quantum physics paradigm, which is based on a model of reality that is not only incomplete, but inaccurate...

 

but as i find Krishna's text above to be based on assumptions and has a few inaccuracies, i feel it deserves a much longer response, which i will start to work on once my day of creative work is done... hopefully i should be able to publish it later tonight (north american time), or if not, in the days that follow...

 

that being said, have an inspired day you all ! :o)

I thank all the people who participated in this discussion for providing their views. They really broaden my world. I invite more.

Yes!

48073 said:

Just because in any profession one uses creativity does not make it related to art at all.

The question: "What is science?" would probably result in an answer we can agree upon.
The question "What is art?" however does not have an answer.

Yes, similar but slightly different.

giulia occorsio said:

To see into a microscope reveal the wonderful word of microcosm: cells,bacteriums,blood,micro-organisms and others, are instruments for science such colours and brushs for an artist...

Giulia Occorsio

Can I to risk say: art is other half science's sky and science is equally in art?

Giulia Occorsio

 

Thanks for your kind reply Krishna...

 

here's a first part of my longer reply...

 

i find many of the inaccuracies comes from the way in which you depict the lateralization of the brain functions...

 

for instance : 

Creativity comes from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts mostly originate in the other part of the brain.

 

things are not so simple... from Wikipedia :

 

« Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateralized, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides. »

 

« While functions are lateralized, the lateralizations are functional trends, which differ across individuals and specific function. »

 

« Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness and of right or left ear preference, but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions

 

in particular, the idea that the right/creative hemisphere is « emotionally charged » seems like a dangerously misleading misconception. on the contrary, it appears that the right hemisphere is often the one which has more control over emotions, and is dominant in perception, and expression of emotions...

 

for more details, please consult :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_lateralization

Agreed, all parts of the brain works during processing of thoughts but how they work, which part more and which less makes a person who he is!

Thank you. I have seen these articles before. Know what? The world of science doesn't give importance to or rely on wikipedia because any one can write there! Yes, even you can write about brain functions and neuroscience on wikipedia. And you can give references about any book there. Some of my friends who were not experts in the relavant fields too wrote articles on some subjects there ! For scientific studies we consult only science journals that publish peer-reviewd papers and never wikipedia. This is because wikipedia doesn't give you correct information on science topics! Only recently I had a discussion with a neuroscientist about recent studies in this direction. Let me tell you this very clearly. In science you can never come to a final conclusion on half-studies and the studies on brain are still going on. But based on the studies done till now it is widely accepted in the Biological world that the right part of the brain is associated with creativity. Tomorrow somebody can disprove this and we are open to this and prepared to face it. Until then what is widely accepted and what I said stands. You can read the articles written and published by eminent neuro-scientist and neuro-surgeon Dr. E. Krishna Moorthy in the news paper Hindu which are based on British neuro-scientists's work. I am disappointed by your argument without giving  reliable links. I thought you would give solid proof.

You get all sorts of information on internet these days but how much of it is reliable - especially in case of science? Only a small part of it. Have you ever thought about it? Several times I was shocked to see incorrect information in my own field. Sorry, Christopher, I cannot accept your argument as it is based on "wikipedia knowledge".  To beat -what you call inaccuracy- you need the weapon of absolute truth not another inaccuracy! Tell me something new,  interesting and reliable.   

Christopher Stewart said:

Thanks for your kind reply Krishna...

 

here's a first part of my longer reply...

 

i find many of the inaccuracies comes from the way in which you depict the lateralization of the brain functions...

 

for instance : 

Creativity comes mainly from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts mostly originate in the other part of the brain.

 

things are not so simple... from Wikipedia :

 

« Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateralized, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides. »

 

« While functions are lateralized, the lateralizations are functional trends, which differ across individuals and specific function. »

 

« Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness and of right or left ear preference, but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions

 

in particular, the idea that the right/creative hemisphere is « emotionally charged » seems like a dangerously misleading misconception. on the contrary, it appears that the right hemisphere is often the one which has more control over emotions, and is dominant in perception, and expression of emotions...

 

for more details, please consult :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_lateralization

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!

 

You want something new,  interesting and reliable ? 

 

look at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles, the references and sources are listed... they come from serious scientific publications... ;o)

 



Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:

Thank you. I have seen these before. Know what? The world of science doesn't give importance to or rely on wikipedia because any one can write there! Yes, even you can write about brain functions and neuroscience on wikipedia. And you can give references about any book there. Some of my friends too wrote articles there ! For scientific studies we consult only science journals that publish peer-reviewd papers and never wikipedia. This is because wikipedia doesn't give you correct information on science topics! Only recently I had a discussion with a neuroscientist about recent studies in this direction. Let me tell you this very clearly. In science you can never come to a conclusion on half-studies and the studies on brain are still going on. But based on the studies done till now it is widely accepted in the Biological world that the right part of the brain is associated with creativity. Tomorrow somebody can disprove this and we are open to this and prepared to face it. Until then what is widely accepted and what I said stands.

You get all sorts of information on internet these days but how much of it is reliable - especially in case of science? Only a small part of it. Have you ever thought about it? Sorry, Christopher, I cannot accept your argument as it is based on "wikipedia knowledge".  Tell me something new,  interesting and reliable.   


Christopher Stewart said:

Thanks for your kind reply Krishna...

 

here's a first part of my longer reply...

 

i find many of the inaccuracies comes from the way in which you depict the lateralization of the brain functions...

 

for instance : 

Creativity comes 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.

 

things are not so simple... from Wikipedia :

 

« Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateralized, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides. »

 

« While functions are lateralized, the lateralizations are functional trends, which differ across individuals and specific function. »

 

« Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness and of right or left ear preference, but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions

 

in particular, the idea that the right/creative hemisphere is « emotionally charged » seems like a dangerously misleading misconception. on the contrary, it appears that the right hemisphere is often the one which has more control over emotions, and is dominant in perception, and expression of emotions...

 

for more details, please consult :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_lateralization

RSS

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service