Can a scientist ever be a great artist? Or what about the other way round? Can an artist ever be a great scientist?
-
Serendipity by A C
-
The Artist in a Scientist
- Date:
- Monday, 27 Aug ust 2007 - 16:07 UTC
Personally, I think that is very difficult if not downright impossible, especially in this age of ultra-specialization. I cannot imagine anyone having the capacity or the time in today’s fast paced, complex and highly specialized world to achieve greatness in both fields.
Perhaps there is another subtler reason too. Science is all about objectivity whereas art is all about subjectivity. In science, one is trained to be an impartial observer. You are not supposed to interfere in that process of observation. Ideally, you should not impose any of your personal world-views on the results and outcomes. Interference should be kept to a minimum and you should let the observations or results speak for themselves without you clouding them with your hopes and expectations. It is all about being the perfect umpire.
But in art it is the exact opposite. It is all about being yourself. Great art has always been produced by people who have been highly subjective in what they did. They delved into themselves and the world around, seeing it through their opinions and even prejudices and coming up with great results. Great artists often channel their fears , hopes and expectations to come up with deeply subjective art. Objective art does not exist as far as I know.
I think history supports me in this. There have been many great scientists who have been good artists but never have they achieved the same measure of greatness in art as well as in science. And I cannot even recall a great artist who was equally good in science (perhaps someone can correct me on this), especially in modern times. Except for one exception-that unquestionable genius-Leonardo da Vinci and he was very much a product of a special period in history.
Last updated: Monday, 27 Aug 2007 - 16:07 UTC
-
Comments
-
I think that in this day and age, one has to devote oneself fully to either art or science in order to excel in one of them. So I think it’s more the lack of time, not so much differences in thinking, that is the reason why you don’t often see someone who is both an outstanding science and artist.
There are exceptions though: Carl Djerassi, a chemist who won the US National Medal of Science (a high honor), among other awards. And his plays have been performed and broadcast around the world.
I also recently ran a profile on NN Boston about a geneticist who is the lead singer of a local rock band.
I recently had the following conversation:
Friend: Would you like to come with me to a talk about polymaths?
Me: That sounds interesting… What is a polymath?
Friend: Exactly!
Me: Ah…
(…thought bubble: …???…)
What is sad/amusing about this exchange is that I really did not know what a polymath was and had to look it up in Wikipedia (as apposed to having questions about how exactly to define it, and what it means in the ‘modern world’).
You might find the listed people in Wikipedia and this BBC article interesting.
Something that is perhaps worth considering is that most of us, brilliant and indispensable as we may be, do not “excel” at anything; therefore a scientist who is at the top of his field and unwinds by painting portraits is probably as in touch with his artistic side as anyone else who comes home from work and unwinds by painting good, but not excellent, portraits?
I wonder if anyone has any comment about ‘objective’ art. I only have a glimpse of an insight regarding music – looking at Serial Music and the ideas of John Cage might be a good starting point on this topic.
“And I cannot even recall a great artist who was equally good in science.”
And what about Goethe? :) Of course, he wasnt right, but not even Newton was right :) Well, it is rare event if great scientist + great artist are in one person, but it is going to happen. It is matter of probabilty. I dont think science in old times was less intricate than todays one. Simply, we dont know old science and we dont understand it (although Lord Acton was right when he said genuine scientist must be fond of history of science). Even though modern science is really more complicated, we have good helpers which were not known in old times: computers, internet, warm water, grant support, fire tongs, public opinion, no sacerdotage etc.
I think genius = simplicity. If anybody is able to think simply, (s)he has a lot of spare time for art, philosophy and so on. It was the case of Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Heisenerg, Eddington… Even I think genuine science without art or philosophy is nonsense.
Boris, I liked your last paragraph. Simplicity.
Well, as regards to science vs art, I wrote a post some time back about rock stars that got degrees but this doesn’t really come as a reply to your initial questions. They were good in art and ok-ok in science.
On the contrary, some of the greatest scientists are the most creative visionary people and in my mind great artists. What about the first person to look at the moon and imagine humans walking on its surface? Wouldn’t you call the space shuttle a work of art? I would consider scientists artists because they discover something new about the world, and yet they didn’t create it, they created a way to figure it out. Art isnt just painting, and drawing, its creating and constructing. Science is an art, and I think all of our modern technology speaks for itself.