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 uko post on
-
Very nice text, good analysis, I absolutely agree with you.
Kind regards,
Uko Post
www
-
Permalink Reply by Irit Hakim-Keller on
-
Dearest Krishna,
I am grateful for your post here. Just lately I have had an argument (so call) with a friend about this subject. I argued the art to be a science and v.v. while he said that "art is not science, period!"
You have definitely showed here that two are not antonym for each other.
It was Albert Einstein who said: " Mystery is the most beautiful thing we can experience. This is the source of all true art and science."
Thanks you.
Could I publish this article some where else? (giving you the credit of course)
-
Permalink Reply by giulia occorsio on
-
Replyng to Dr.Krishna Kumari Challa, I think brain as a big box who choose and prefer to have a natural bent for reasons more congenial own personality. If fellow is very intelligent and enterprising, there are no limits for creative and science (Leonardo and fews others excellences) so, to drive, reason and sentiment on the same tracks,almost Mrs. Krishna affirm: " in art you have more freedom than in science" - this opinion is truthful relatively. Here, we find, fulcrum oh the word " antonym". Between arts and sciences there are some limits answering to codes very difficult to extirpate, they are something like that: ethics, morality, message, application. If artists answering only own morality and messages, sciences answering more things. In this meaning art is more freedom. Antonym born when there is an application: art live all box brain whit personal emotion, science live and brake the run in front of rational examination of results...
Giulia Occorsio
-
Permalink Reply by Igor Eugen PROKOP on
-
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!!!"
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
Thank you. In fact I had been expecting this reaction from some of you and your reply brought a smile to my face!
I said these words because I had heard some artists saying there were only limited amount or number of subjects to deal with in the art world! I asked them how could that be correct when there could be as many subjects to work on as there were things in this universe! Unless one opens his or her mind to all the available subjects how could they see them? Artists cannot limit their works only to a limited number of themes. Closed minds do thrive here.
In the beginning when I started creating works based on science, people in the field of art here refused to treat them as art works! According to them science doesn't come under the heading "culture" and therefore doesn't qualify to be in the world of art! Isn't that an argument of a closed mind, my dear?
Some here are averse to abstract art and say artists who deal with this form of art are not real artists. Some argue that impressionists don't know how to do works of art and only realists are real artists! All these are clear signs of closed minds. You might argue that they are only different views. But these views arise when the minds are not fully open.
Haven't you heard about "non-thinking art"?! Some artists create works just by copying nature, daily chores or others' works. Once an artist decides about the copying object, colors and how to go about it, he can close his mind and "mechanically do things". Here "closing mind" refers to new thoughts and ideas of other people not about his own work or hand movements!! I am an artist too. I have seen people do this. In "thinking art" - which I call real creative art - an artist cannot close his mind. It is from this thinking art new works and forms arise. Artists who completely close their minds to new thoughts and ideas (even if you provide proof) say, "I don't think this is true"! Thinking with a mind that is affected by prejudice, dogmas and beliefs is different from fact and truth. That is why I say an artist has this choice of living in a world of his creation & illusions!
Shall I tell you something which can also be true? Daily people in several parts of the world complain that they are forced to do things mechanically without the involvement of their minds because the work becomes routine or simply because they are not interested in what they are doing! Non-thinking art is one such thing!
Meenu Dhage said:Sorry I dont agrre with your statement "An artist can close his mind whenever he wants and can still go ahead with his work but in Science if you close your mind, that will be the end of your journey!".
Each and every hand movement happens at the command of mind.
I am an artist myself, unless I(or any body else) visualise moving the paintbrush, I really cannot paint it.
No work can happen even 'mechanically' without mind participating in it.
-
-
Its a thought-provoking discussion, but I believe that Art cannot substitute Science. Though arft also explores new vistas and trends.
manmohan saral
(This is a private message sent to me)
-
-
Yes, you can, Irit, provided you clearly say it is written by me and first published on Art Lab. By the way, where do you want to publish it?
Irit Hakim-Keller said:
Dearest Krishna,
I am grateful for your post here. Just lately I have had an argument (so call) with a friend about this subject. I argued the art to be a science and v.v. while he said that "art is not science, period!"
You have definitely showed here that two are not antonym for each other.
It was Albert Einstein who said: " Mystery is the most beautiful thing we can experience. This is the source of all true art and science."
Thanks you.
Could I publish this article some where else? (giving you the credit of course)
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Stewart on
-
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)
-
Permalink Reply by Catherine sarah hislop on
-
I a greatful for your statment as most of the brilliant artists are open to what is going on in the cosmos and scietifically use their brain to portray what they feel and see.
-
-
In my opinion science is a form of art
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Catherine Mascrès on
-
I see great art in the cells when I have the chance to see them through a microscope. A good scientist is probably a good artist, as artistic qualities are needed for outstanding findings. I do agree with you, no antonym there. Thank you for sharing.
-
-
Thats what i feel science is a form of art
Catherine Mascrès said:
I see great art in the cells when I have the chance to see them through a microscope. A good scientist is probably a good artist, as artistic qualities are needed for outstanding findings. I do agree with you, no antonym there. Thank you for sharing.
Badge
Birthdays
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
