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

Sorry, we cannot collaborate with you if you come to us with closed minds!

On an on line science, art collaboration group, a discussion was started on scientific and artistic thought processes. It was started with an intention to find out each others’ view points on each field which might help lead into collaborative projects. The artist – scientist ratio was 95:5. Only a few scientists came forward to participate in the discussion. I went there as I was interested in knowing what artists think about science and scientists and how they deal with their work. In fact scientists went there to help artists in dealing with science while creating sci-art. But after some period, I and other scientists were deeply disappointed.

All that we said was – in our experience art was easy to create than doing scientific research. And all hell broke loose. Artists started attacking us because one artist felt this statement insulting and instigated others. He said religion was the only truth. Science is all humbug and nonsense. He also said (“the species”_ the actual word used ) scientists' thought process was no better than any ordinary person's thinking on the road! Another one supported it. One artist said only art could have success and science could never succeed anywhere! When I presented a few research theories based on facts on science and art, they not only out rightly rejected them, but also refused to even consider them. Some artists who wanted to go along with us were attacked and made to follow the colleagues in their field. All that scientists could do was shut up and maintain silence. We were really shocked.

My artist friends on my network are not like these artists. They are really good. They know how to deal with us.

Scientists are mostly introverts although now they are venturing out a little bit and interacting with the outside world. They are not used to emotionally charged atmospheres. They do their work in isolation in their labs in calm surroundings. Some of my colleagues even get surprised when I tell them I interact with the artists on a regular basis. It is really difficult to deal with things in an emotionally charged atmosphere. But the day I entered the art world I accepted this challenge. Some scientists might try to work with artists by coming down to their emotional levels to create harmony but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any difference between the working patterns in the fields of science and art.

If somebody refuses to accept the facts and closes his/her mind and is not willing to even consider them, scientists don’t waste their time on such people. Because they know facts and truth are like fire. Nobody can refuse to ignore them and sweep them under the carpet. They will burn the carpet, come out and get noticed. Science is based on facts.

What happened to people who refused scientific theories and punished scientists in the medieval period? They were proved wrong in the subsequent centuries. Could they stop science and technology from proceeding further and bring progress? Scientists knew this and they refuse to get dragged into unnecessary arguments. They hit ignore button and leave the place if they are brought under such situations. Just because some people refuse to accept the facts, science doesn’t vanish. Just because you shout, argue and silence others as you are in greater numbers, truth doesn’t disappear. The few scientists who wanted to interact with artists left the forum of the group. Is this what the artists wanted? Is this how collaborative projects proceed? Now they are wondering why we all left without having a fruitful dialogue!

But what amuses the scientists the most is even the most dedicated science critics cannot live even for a single day without utilizing the fruits of science and technology. Can s/he live without using cell phones, internet, medicines, cars, planes, houses that use latest tech. food that use scientific processing methods to take the form in which they eat, clothes, roads to name a few. They forget that all these are products of the field they batter so much!

The moment an artist mixes the colours on a pallet, s/he starts dealing with chemistry. The moment s/he starts viewing an art work, s/he starts dealing with Biology! Ignore this if you want to but can the truth fade away?

Everybody is entitled to have his or her own opinions and beliefs but not to his or her own facts. If you bring your opinions and beliefs into scientific world, they will be dissected and the truth will be bared before you. Only if you have the courage and ability to face it, venture into the world of science and think about collaborative work. Don’t come to the scientific world with pre-conceived notions. You will be left to deal with naked truths here! Before jumping 0n the bandwagon of sci-art, first learn how to deal with science and the world of science in collaborative projects!

7 members like this

Comment

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

Join SCI-ART LAB

Comment by Catherine Mascrès on February 24, 2012 at 8:17pm: Both art and Science need creativity to progress. People should work together for a better world. Shut down a bit the ego. Thank you for sharing.

Comment by Minnie W Shuler on February 23, 2012 at 10:19pm: Science, as well as art and a great many other things we have to be grateful for are the result of no more than rational thought and action. Yes, some art is charges with emotional disregard for what some consider normal rules of presentation or topic but the rational thought to get to that stage is still necessary. We owe a great deal to the scientiic process, it cannot be denied.

Comment by Milivoj Šegan on February 23, 2012 at 1:53am: Science and art have only one common point, which is empirical, so-called pragmatic and intellectual understanding of the manifestation of nature (creation), the so-called carrier material. Without an understanding of that fact would not have lasted anything, even the imagination, and it is not characteristic of theistic and awareness. Imagination is inherent in all the branches in three directions, the awareness of religious and spiritual matters, science and art the same paradigm, and all three of the origin of everything. So, all people have the imagination and the freedom to choose your consciousness compared with the environment, and of course learned to communicate with you and the other, different. So I bit the art that, and so it is with science. Dogmatic consciousness is often exclusively, to those who do not believe in the singularity of the Creator, and the like are atheists, just the opposite. (-_-) So, not a rule that the unbelieving scientist, nor a believer is not a scientist and artist. Einstein said, only good scientists are the best and most faithful. In my opinion and me as an artist is supposed to every man. And scientists with their 5 senses, interpreter and observer world and of himself (ego) in him, so he said Hubbel. And let's say a believer be a manifestation of deep spiritual intimacy, it is the only ultimate spirituality devoid of substantive and empirical understanding of existence. So the believer, does not need to understand not only matter, but only the Holy Spirit, which is the highest abstraction! They are abstract artists, most larger (-_-) So let me repeat, artist and scientist are similar, almost identical in approach Gnoseoformi and Scientiji dual nature, the believer is exclusively spiritual category, which denies the nature of matter, apart from the abstract notion of God! And it can not criticize, interpret, argue, even negate, the artists and scientists jedinao usually more work, in their process of creation and empiricism. Thus, there is no art without controversy or science, because it is not ideal, as the ideal Holy Spirit (-_-)That should be respected, without controversy, or of one person, who is this!Art is and a game, not a serious issue only ,in my opinion and practice?!:))

Comment by Catherine sarah hislop on February 23, 2012 at 12:06am: This is excellent i am going to circulate

Comment by Otto Rapp on February 22, 2012 at 1:36pm: This cuts both ways, Krishna!

At the institution I graduated from (magna cum laude) a few decades ago, scientists (and their students) used to look down their noses at artists, whom they considered unwashed and ignorant simpletons incapable of succeeding in any other field of study. Humanists were not as bad; on the other hand, those in the fields of business and political science were the worse.

The participation ratio in your example above actually speaks volumes.

To prove a point, I entered a few elective science courses also, and succeeded with flying colors, further boosting my GPA.

The point is that not all artists are stupid losers incapable of grasping science (da Vinci comes to mind), and some artists must open their minds - and I would particularly single out those that come to the table with religious and also cultural prejudices, as it appears many in your example were from what I would consider the 'lunatic fringe' of fundamentalist religious movements (and no religion is immune to these fanatical sects, from within as well as without their established mainstreams).

My two cents worth, and perhaps also a touchy subject to me currently, since just recently I had to deal with an artists that is increasingly alienating his friends with his extreme views; best described as christo-faschism. But there are other "faschists - types" found on the fringes of all world religions; and your example seems to indicate that there were a disproportionately large number of those that participated.

Cheers

Otto