Science and Art

[Louanne Learning]

I am questioning whether or not I am contradictory.

On the one hand, I suspect that I have a scientific, analytical mind. It likes to put things in logical order.

On the other hand, my heart swells with any kind of romanticism … (feelings! feelings! feelings!) … the idea that all nature and science should become art.

Is it necessary/possible to reconcile these two seemingly divergent views?

Do you feel one, or the other, best describes you as an artist?

Do you feel one, or the other, best describes a good writer?

Is one a reaction or a compliment to the other?

“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’—that is all//Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”

But, is it?

 

[Louanne Learning]

"Just as a child is only a thing which wants to become a human being, so a poem is only a product of nature which wants to become a work of art."

~ Friedrich Schlegel

 

[CatrionaGrace]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Robert Pirsig, after many, many, many words, concluded that classical (rational) and romantic (emotional) thinking are not only compatable but must be integrated to achieve harmony.

In every writing or art class I ever taught- every damn one since 1997- someone comes up with some version of, "I can't be creative (romantic/emotional) because I am a hard-assed (classical/rational) scientist/MBA/waste water management pro/fill in the blank." To my utter satisfaction, every damn one of those people changed his or her mind by the end of the course.

Full disclosure: I graduated high school having taken seven science courses, then completed a BS and in grad work in agronomy and range science. Concurrently, I pursued writing, art, and music. My husband has degrees in geology and music, and conducted successful careers in each field. He has been a carpenter for decades, a profession that combines science and art.

End of lecture.

 

[Stuart Dren]

I'm not sure a dichotomy is even called for in the first place though I agree it exists in the perspectives of many.

Science is a whole philisophical subcategory, of which people even accidentally adhere given it's both instructional and descriptive. To me, drawing contrast between things so encompassing is like asking: do you use cars, boats, or legs to go places?

For me a stark division only exists at the acute level. I need a plumber right now. I don't need one that speaks only in limerick, and while it would be nice, I'm not paying extra for that regardless.

For an extreme example, what would you call an archiect? Really any craftsman, say a tile layer (tiler? Tyler!?) has to consider aesthetic both specifically and holistically which is not far from art.

 

[Homer Potvin]

The two things are in no way exclusive. Great scientists have to be creative and great artists have to be scientific. I don't think I've ever met one of either that didn't have a healthy dose of the other.

In every writing or art class I ever taught- every damn one since 1997- someone comes up with some version of, "I can't be creative (romantic/emotional) because I am a hard-assed (classical/rational) scientist/MBA/waste water management pro/fill in the blank." To my utter satisfaction, every damn one of those people changed his or her mind by the end of the course.

Yeah, how that ever became a dichotomy escapes me. I think it's that left brain, right brain bullshit. You need both halves of your brain, dumbass. That's the point.

I'm a walking case study for this. I can spend all day writing stories or composing music. Or I can spend all day doing data analysis or tweaking business models. Either one feels as natural as an old flannel shirt to me.

 

[Heartlet Happer]

There is physics vs lyrics .. skip..
The sciences vs art .. skip ..
If to look for the earliest reference.
There is techno vs enthusiasmos by Plato in Ion. Looks like the origin of that dichotomy.
The abilities rely either on expertise or on divine inspiration.

No matter if someone is scientist or artist or neither or both, the abilities are either trained or gifted.
So both sources of power are valid, however given official social statuses are recognized by gatekeepers, who are usually experts.
So contradiction is not in scientist vs artist. Contradiction is you are in a club, or you are an outsider.
You are in a club if you have the epistemics elephant eaten.
You can be in two clubs at the same time, if two piles of prior arts are personally sifted. These are two different piles, not a singular.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I love the replies here. Thank you so much everyone for your insights, I am sure they will be encouragement to many.

 

[Louanne Learning]

that classical (rational) and romantic (emotional) thinking are not only compatable but must be integrated to achieve harmony.

This says it very well. I very much like the idea of reaching for harmony.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Leonardo Da Vinci comes to mind. He was probably the greatest integrator of science and art

 

[Homer Potvin]

Leonardo Da Vinci comes to mind. He was probably the greatest integrator of science and art

Or Einstein or Stephen Hawking. They didn't numerically derive that spacetime was curved or the universe emerged from the Big Bang. They creatively posited the theory from evidence that couldn't be explained scientifically until they created the math required to support it. My father was a dean of engineering who taught the final PhD math courses, and for the last year or so, the students didn't touch a single number. Everything they did was like creative essays where you had to creatively theorize how to use numbers. The numbers themselves were irrelevant. I'm probably describing that wrong, but you get the idea.

You can also argue that the scientists wield a jillion times more historic influence than the artists. The water pump for example has affected the course of human history and everyone alive today more than whatever the most influential piece of art did.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

I gave one of my stories to a brother of mine to read some time ago. He picked up on intellectual shortcomings in the story, so I kicked him in the nuts and said, "I wanted you to feel, not think."

Ok, some bits of that statement aren't true. I will say I'm happier to feel something when reading than not. Thinking isn't eliminated, but the emotional connection is far more potent. I tried reading The Gulag Archipelago and couldn't finish it. I know it recounted massive torment and distress, but it read like a list and may as well have been a shopping list for all the effect it had on me. I'm not proud of that and will say A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was significantly more powerful to read.

I'll forgive very many deficits in writing if there's a sense of authenticity to the emotional content. It gives me an anchor. Without it, the text starts moving around the page, carrying on little conversations in groups of two and three, raising a murmur that makes it very hard to retain focus. That, primarily, is my target in a lot of what I write, so long as it doesn't mess around with the bit of mischief that we shouldn't have to do without.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I gave one of my stories to a brother of mine to read some time ago. He picked up on intellectual shortcomings in the story, so I kicked him in the nuts and said, "I wanted you to feel, not think."

I will say I'm happier to feel something when reading than not. Thinking isn't eliminated, but the emotional connection is far more potent.

This is my approach, too. Plot, to me, is the vehicle to carry/move along the feelings expressed in the story. I just had a thought - I'm not sure about it - but something about a story being warmer rather than colder.