Science and Art: Differing Objectives for Abstract Data Analysis

Published in: GIA Reader, Vol 24, No 2 (Summer 2013)

Joe Smoke

I am currently writing an essay for a university art gallery exhibition catalog about how the early nineteenth-century invention of photography marked a change in art and spiritual consciousness; and thus dwelling on the postindustrial trajectories of art and science. I have so many extra notions that I created this separate cloud of thought. Apologies if this musing seems too general. I present it here to excite dialogue and receive feedback through the GIA Reader.

Scientists and artists — the greatest of both types are methodical thinkers; but these occupations don’t have a common purpose. In fact, art and science have different conceptual, influential, educational, methodological, operational, and philosophical purposes; so why do we persist in imagining that mixing artists and scientists will generate “heightened” innovation? I will endeavor to outline briefly how and why art and science have different roles in society, even though both fields play foundational roles in developing human awareness.

Science seeks answers, whereas art seeks questions. Both inquiries originate with the concept that things are wrong or unresolved. But scientists scrutinize, and artists synthesize. Artists accept or embrace unobvious outcomes. Scientists want to make conclusions. Scientists do not try to mix or interrelate problems. They want to prove or disprove a strategically focused question. Artists are happy if their queries lead to other queries. In this respect, the two fields share a common interest in “going beyond the obvious”; but in the end, one mystery is about empiricism and the other is about consciousness. Scientists hope to land on solutions. Artists hope to excite speculations.

Greater divergences originate from paradigm difference. Artists complain about the lack of funding for their “research,” while scientists are squeezed out or bought out from the “development” (or further development) of their ideas. Industrial corporations buy or copy scientific advancements, and entertainment corporations buy or copy artistic concepts for monetary gain. Governments use scientific investments to establish or maintain political power, but they rarely employ art investments for similar or obvious influence. In the end, scientists derive some money from patents. Artists get some residual income from copyrights.

A key feature of the art-science duality is its crucible lesson for teachers: we must try to educate students about both ways of seeking answers, because the manner of seeking dictates the outcome. The method of exploration dictates whether a thinker is working in a creative or logical fashion.

Art and science workers gain from failure in opposing ways. Artists do not find public failure pleasurable. They try to fail offstage or in the studio. Artists hope that when their innovations are presented they have openness, flexible interpretation, and something for everyone. Scientists see the end point of failure as “disproving something.” Whether proving or disproving a hypothesis, scientists make their work public. The realm of art is win-win for everyone. The realm of science is competitive by speed and accuracy. For these reasons scientists work methodically to achieve, and artists delve methodically to reveal.

In contemplating these theoretical and practical differences, I am trying to justify continued support of crossover projects that promise increased benefit through teaming scientists and artists. The historical “collaborations” I have recounted through library and Internet research are at best parallel tracks. Most are just examples of scientists and artists sharing interests. Few are partnerships (e.g., those that seek to “map [i.e. envision] something invisible” like the workings of the human brain), and hardly any are functional collaborations. Hence, it seems that the united philanthropic sector is better off directing resources to other cross-sector collaborations wherein processes and objectives are more aligned: for example, arts and public safety, arts and mental health, science and poverty, or science and nutrition.

Likewise, I remain greatly indifferent to the idea that artists drive culture as much as scientists. While I respect that both perceptions and tools are needed for “adaptation,” when forced to make a choice toward achieving success, I would always choose new tools. The arts and artists have my greatest respect for expressing values. Science and scientists get my greatest honors for shifting the future. Synthesis is a great gift; however, history indicates that discovery is a more powerful contribution. Indeed, these manners of influence overlap. But I also see that character defines reputation, which becomes collective temperament; so running closest to engendering disagreement on this point of comparison I will simply end this paragraph with a question: Don’t you find that the most successful artists are “assured” personalities (divas), whereas the most successful scientists are “humble” types (nerds)? Sorry, ouch.

Quickly-cleverly back to the topic of education, to duck incoming virtual tomatoes and end with some unifying remarks. If you agree with my general observations, then we can agree that art and science are different soul foods for youth and adults. We need to practice and enjoy both types of exploration (especially if I am correct about how they shape personality and/or behavior). But until and unless someone can provide me with convincing project examples and shared impacts from modern times, I recommend that grantmakers not spend too much energy or money in getting professional scientists and artists together as project partners. They have opposing objectives.

The human brain is an amazing “expectation machine.” But it also has functioning properties that get short-circuited when they are used together. I deduce that focused research results in conclusions (positive and negative), whereas focused inquiry results in story bonding (of unlimited colors). Satisfaction is found in both scientific and artistic realms, through repetition or practice. Both types of mind concentration develop talent and appreciation. Yet despite their complementary social responsiveness, ultimately science and art have different functions.

Science and Art: Differing Objectives for Abstract Data Analysis

"I remain greatly indifferent to the idea that artists drive culture as much as scientists. While I respect that both perceptions and tools are needed for “adaptation,” when forced to make a choice toward achieving success, I would always choose new tools. The arts and artists have my greatest respect for expressing values. Science and scientists get my greatest honors for shifting the future. Synthesis is a great gift; however, history indicates that discovery is a more powerful contribution."

You have so nicely outlined the reasons artists and scientists are put together. I believe one of the problems today's scientists and engineers have is a lack of "outside the box" thinking due to the rigidity of their education, i.e. by the book, rote memory, testing and retesting, more memory,etc., etc.. Not that they, by any means, are deficient. IMHO,I just think that they would have been better served with experiential learning versus didactic learning.

When faced with projects outside of the education world in didactic learning the ability to problem solve, think critically, have intuition to make lateral leaps of intelligence, to apply information in thoughtful ways, to take educated risks and so many other things that have nothing to do with the actual making of a product, require radical thinking changes.

As Steve Jobs once said, You can teach artists how to use software and graphics tools, but it’s much harder to turn engineers into artists.”

If we look around and ask ourselves, "Would I be able to spend one day without art?" I don't mean pretty pictures I mean art that influences what we do every day, that if it was not there we would not be able to do that very thing; use that item; hold it, lay in it, eat from it, ....... just open our minds and think.

Which is the reason that artists and scientists must be put together because, I think, the scientist works totally from the left brain and the artist works totally from the right. Both need the influence of each other.

Personally, I am acquainted with someone who in N. CA is "training" engineers and scientists today as problem solvers, critical thinkers, etc., because companies can no longer find people to hire who cannot develop new products in a more timely manner. There seems to be a "shortage of people who think "outside the box".

The reason? How kids have been and are educated.

Forty percent of kids in elementary schools are linear learners, sequential left brained, sit in your seat and listen to the teacher, then go home and read to do your homework kids. These are the lucky kids because they follow the "system" and are called bright. Another 40% are totally different learners who cannot sit in their seat, are right brained, non linear, visual, hands on, experiential learners who get labeled Learning Disabled because the current education system cannot teach to their style of learning. The other 20%? The middle group, who can adequately use both sides of their brain and do well no matter what.

"I deduce that focused research results in conclusions (positive and negative), whereas focused inquiry results in story bonding (of unlimited colors)."

I "deduce" that you are only exploring "art" as in painting pictures, so your differing objectives might be a touch biased?:-) As many before you have done, art is being misunderstood from years of social conditioning. Art is many things and serves many disciplines,like, drama, dance, story telling, ceramics, sculpture, woodworking, design, graphics, illustration, music, theater, to name a few, just as science is more than just research, hypothesis, trial, error, and conclusion. I love astronomy, oceanography, geology, biology was my favorite subject in school as was sociology and archaeology.

Believe it or not, artists actually do research the theme of their projects very well, do sketches, trials, mock ups, way before they put the final on canvas. It really is a science. Even the paint colors and the kinds of paints they use, as well as the brushes that give them the look they want. All of this is tried out and thrown out or kept depending on the look.

"Story bonding" or story telling, requires proficiency in communication, expression, interpretation, drawing inferences, and applying one's own knowledge and experiences to a story. Active participation or Drama, in the "story world" creates a context for more sophisticated comprehension and the creation of more elaborate meanings as kids get multiple perspectives, viewpoints and insights to stories. Even the ones they have heard many times.

Arts promote logical understanding, not just production of a beautiful artifact!
Arts promote proficiency in reading, math and science.
Arts raise logic and reasoning ability.

What makes it possible for a man with moderate intelligence to become a great success, while someone else who may be considered a great intellectual, will not be able to hold down a job?

According to Bill Gates..“What make people successful are their motivation, drive, and ability to learn from
mistakes, and how hard they work.”

Passion and Perseverance. Both unrelated to intelligence, but as a mindset or belief, working toward a future goal, unstoppable.

The ability to learn is not intelligence it seems, but mindset and grit!

Therefore, in my mind, I can see no difference between an artist and a scientist. Both are passionate about what they do and have the perseverance to keep on doing it as long as they are alive.

Gates continues to say... “Over the past year, I have interviewed the founders of more than 200 Silicon Valley start-ups. The most common traits I have observed are a passion to change the world and the confidence to defy the odds and succeed.”

Note: Quotes by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were from a speech that Gates gave on July 2, 2013 on "Creativity vs Academics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.