Science and Art: When Extremes Converge

Simon604

I found a very intriguing article which compares the fields of Art and Science and the individuals who partake in them. Although the article refers to the portrayal of Art in Science in novel form, I believe there is more which can be drawn from the author's pursuit of a common ground between the two disciplines. Essentially, the author makes the point that while the Arts and Sciences are usually viewed in contrast to one another, they may be more complimentary than we think. I have included an edited portion of the article in this post, but if anyone wants to read the full text, scroll down for the link.

The physicist C. P. Snow announced in 1959 in his book The Two Cultures that between science and art lies "a gulf of mutual incomprehension -- sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding." Granted, the two endeavors seem schism-separated, but a few scientists and artists have made the journey and lived to tell the tale. In recent decades, however, the two species of work have diverged further, mainly due to vocabulary. Both science and art have developed specialized vernaculars that obfuscates concepts and excludes the uninitiated.

...

The art world, however, is not innocent of exclusionary vocabulary practices. In the book Teaching the Postmodern Fiction and Theory, Brenda K. Marshall discusses structuralism, post-structuralism, intertextuality, historiographic metafiction, and more. When I first delved, years ago, I was reminded of the first time I tried to read a scientific paper when I was an undergrad: I recognized that the letters formed words, and I could define some words, but the words lumped together into an impenetrable mass of assumed knowledge and in-jokes. I hammered. It didn’t give.

For the post-modernist neo-Luddites among us, primary scientific literature is probably the best extant example of intertextuality. Every sentence of introductions and many in the bodies of works are terminated by references to another primary source. A paper’s conclusion delineates the boundaries of the particular work and connects it to the body of knowledge and to yet-unpublished or even unconceived work, thus extending tendrils of intertextuality not only into the past, but also into the future. A scientific paper is an insect in an intellectual ecosystem.

...

While writers have been hesitant to incorporate science into their art, scientists have long mined art, especially novels, for metaphors and vocabulary.

...

Long denigrated as the realm of the geeky, science has been touted as boring and too difficult for lay people to understand. This is false. While I have a few theories about why some people push that agenda, whether puffery, alienation, or superstition, it’s a lie. Science is the pursuit of truth. Whether physics or virology, the truth is usually simple.

Long denigrated as effete and elitist, some people promulgate that art is stupid. This is false. While I have a few theories about why people push that agenda -- puffery again, backlash anti-elitism, or parochialism, it is also a lie. Art communicates truth. Whether modern dance or a novel, the truth is usually simple.

Naturally, the two cultures can converge. Science is the pursuit of truth. Art communicates truth. The gulf should be crossed more often, because a fertile land lies between their borders, not a great chasm.

http://www.bookslut.com/features/2007_10_011815.php