Comments on: The art of science

By: Laura Sklansky

Laura Sklansky — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:31:32 +0000

This is a beautifully written piece by Dr. Jason, and many replies elaborate on the similarities between the scientific and artistic processes. I also agree with those that point out the differences, as I feel there are differences between science and art that cannot be denied. Dr. Jason’s mention of the supportive agents such as coalitions, colleagues, friends and family members who can help transform the dreams of both scientists and artists into reality, should definitely be noted.

By: Dave Glenwick

Dave Glenwick — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:06:32 +0000

Excellent point, well expressed. We need to appreciate how both creative insight and effort/discipline are necessary for both the scientist and the artist. Creative insights (if not original hypotheses) are inherent in the scientific process BEFORE the painstaking data gathering and analysis that follow, and discipline and effort are inherent in the artistic process required to produce the final product AFTER the “aha” creative insight. Often we underestimate the role of both of these for both the scientist and the artist.

By: Kate Benson

Kate Benson — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:15:18 +0000

Both successful scientists and artists at their core have an ability to think outside the box, to see beyond the here and now, to rearrange their thinking so as to create a different outcome. Dr. Jason gracefully illuminates those areas where they intertwine and intersect.

Perhaps even more importantly he reminds us of the community that sustains such individuals in their journeys.

Bravo.

By: Articles of Interest – December 14, 2012 « National Creativity Network

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:06:17 +0000

[...] The art of science OUPblog [...]

By: John Moritsugu

John Moritsugu — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:39:45 +0000

I like it. I do think that it is provocative. In a small way, this reminds me of a book I am now reading, “College: What it was, is, and should be” by Delbanco. He writes about liberal arts and how good colleges help students question their world. He talks about how the “arts” at one time included math and other topics which would help students “discover” what the world was about. Anyway, I digress. Good first column. Look forward to seeing your book come out.

John Moritsugu, Ph.D.

By: Sarah Callahan

Sarah Callahan — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:25:33 +0000

I am both a scientist and a professional artist. The creative and innovative processes that I use to work in either field are one and the same. Creativity and innovation do not hold biases against science, or any other field for that matter. Clearly, creativity and innovation are critical components to any kind of work product, from a painted canvas to a successful behavioral intervention or an evaluation of a drug trial.

Frankly, I am leery of those so quick to segregate the subjects of science and art. Such segregation ensures operation within a very narrow scope; limiting one’s ability to break barriers, effectuate change, and evolve holistically. Moreover, it seems like a lot of work to have to “build bridges” between genres as others suggest. We wouldn’t have to build ANY bridges if people did not build any barriers.

This is a fabulous, artfully written essay. Dr. Jason poetically highlights the parallels between the two fields. Well done!

By: Jean Harrison

Jean Harrison — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:47:07 +0000

A respected art historian commented that if Leonardo & Michelangelo were alive today they would probably be engineers. Certainly the drawings of Leonardo would suggest that the true engineering & artistic intention to “Get it right” overlap. In each field there is mediocrity, but also in each field is brilliance, innovation, a tribute to nature. Steve Jobs perhaps exemplifies both – engineer & artist. Passionate to improve the quality of life. Yes, I equate engineers with scientists. Theoretical scientists have to desire to understand and create through a new way of viewing. Artists much the same. Van Gough’s “Starry Nigh”t surprised some scientist because the artist got the colors of the planets right. That he did should not be surprising as he was an artist, a observer, a seeker. Many consider art today to be superfluous; but I have to disagree. A beautiful work of art brings, pleasure, joy & presents an understanding of something perhaps new to the viewer, who will perhaps see the world differently because of his perspective. Just as the work of the scientist will cause the world to see something differently.

By: Arny Reichler

Arny Reichler — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:55:18 +0000

This is an impressive article. Professor Jason is a gifted essayist and not only thinks like a social scientist but writes like a poet. I would like to use this essay in the social science courses I teach.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:54:16 +0000

I agree with most of your unique observations.

By: Sarah Callahan

Sarah Callahan — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:53:53 +0000

This is a fabulous essay. As an artist and aspiring scientist, I completely agree with your parallels and associations between the two genres. I can attest that I use the same creative process whether I am working in a computer or a research lab.

By: Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:58:01 +0000

I am both a scientist and an artist. I have written extensively on the subject of science-art,science based art and science art interactions. But I am not comfortable with equating science with art as I know from personal experience they are not very similar to each other with regard to approaches. In fact I am getting bored to hear the same words -which are not very true- again and again. In their eagerness to promote science-art interactions, people are trying to equate science with art which is not correct according to several critics who are averse to the idea of these interactions – alienating these skeptics more. This is not the right way to develop science-art interactions. Science and art are separate subjects – I have listed these differences very clearly in some of my articles posted on my network – and we need different ways to deal with each one. The processes of scientific thinking and artistic thinking resemble each other at basic levels where the lines are somewhat blurred but go their distinguished ways as you proceed further into the fields. Scientific research itself has an in built creativity aspect but based on this you cannot equate both the subjects. If the approaches are similar, science and art would have evolved into a single subject and wouldn’t have become two special subjects they are. You cannot equate wild intuition of an artist with knowledge based guess work of a scientist. We must realize we can only bring these two subjects and people working in them together, build bridges, learn from each others knowledge and reap all the benefits the interactions bring. Any other approach is not correct according to me.

By: Dave Glenwick

Dave Glenwick — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:45:04 +0000

Interesting stuff. I’ve sometimes thought that underestimated are (a) the effort and discipline required of the artist to produce the final product AFTER the “aha” creative insight and (b) the creative insight/hypothesis essential to the scientist BEFORE the painstaking data gathering and analysis process. Appreciation of how both are required of both the artist and the scientist helps us see the commonality between them.

By: Doreen Salina

Doreen Salina — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:33:09 +0000

This essay highlights the similar creative forces that inspire the conception and execution of both art and science. While most of us have been taught to think of research endeavors as neutral, objective processes, their development often begins as an expression of the scientists’ creative thoughts and beliefs, anchored within the framework of scientific theory and personal values. Artists also express these comparable thoughts and beliefs within the framework of the medium within which they work. Both efforts lead eventually to a tangible, defined product through which ideas are communicated. Both science and art are often controversial and, as a result, they inspire others to discuss and refine the ideas presented. This post illuminates core components that are involved in both creating art and the development of research ideas. After reading this essay, the overlapping points of intersection between art and science seem quite clear, although perhaps unexpected for some. This is a very thoughtfully written post.

By: Callum Hackett

Callum Hackett — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:18:06 +0000

I absolutely agree with this and have argued for it for quite some time – my only criticism would be that the most convincing points of comparison are somewhat vague and obfuscated by all the romanticised, purple prose!

By: Julie Rosenbaum

Julie Rosenbaum — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:57:11 +0000

I enjoyed experiencing this. I like the expressive words in the blog that one might call overly passionate. There were lots of wonderful and thought provoking concepts in the blog. You could easily take any one of the paragraphs and turn it into another blog. It touches the heart and mind which leads to inspiration. I call that ‘Affective’.

By: John M. Majer

John M. Majer — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:25:56 +0000

There are striking parallels between art and science even though some choose to take a short-sighted perspective and appraise these as separate or opposing entities. Like art, truly inspiring science involves creativity, imagination, a sense of vision, mastery of various designs and methods, and the ability to connect complex and simple relationships. Both art and science should remind us that there’s always something lurking beyond the obvious.

Proper or good science, like art, demands a mastery of technique, a rich understanding of what’s been accomplished, openness, and ingenuity. Like great art, science moves us, informs us in ways that expand our limits, challenges us to aim higher and improve/evolve while increasing our understanding of our existence and concern for others. Scientific methods (there is no single scientific “method,” just like there is no single way to paint!), like that of a painter’s palette, consist of many elements and requires creativity, perseverance, and dedication. Although science might be more “fact-based” because of its empirical grounding, the “how” and “why” associated with engaging in scientific inquiry clearly involves a value stance rooted in some sort of theory, personal choice, and human bias.

I deeply suspect that there will be a renewed understanding of the limits of current scientific practice; much akin to the ceiling effect of the Renaissance era. The dawning of the technological era of the late 1800s gave us so much in short a relatively short period of time (think of all the scientific advances in the last 100 years), and I wonder if our sense of humanity will ever catch up with it. We once had devoutly religious persons, ardent artists, enlightenment in the form of literature, yet it seems as though some of my colleagues blindly worship science as if to say, “Arts and literature, religion, and politics is for suckas.” Time will tell.

As broad disciplines, art and science exist within cultures involving expression, thought, practice, style, popularity, superficiality, and innovation. Dedicated disciples use their mediums in ways to push forth truths, virtues, and discover new frontiers; they are engaged and not merely compliant within their craft. Both scientists and artists require a healthy mix of imagination and skill in their works to push beyond conventional wonder, but few succeed.

Certainly, it is easy for both the artist and scientist to settle for mediocrity, to imitate rather than to create, to showcase the mundane for personal gratification/validation among peers. However, it’s those transitional artists (e.g., Aitchison, Coltrane, Dali, Eno, Taratino, Bandura, Einstein, Ioannidis, Jung, Pavlov) who remind us of the importance of imagination and criticalness, and history tells us that such pioneers were not immediately embraced or initially well understood/received.

It is no coincidence that political art and social justice research have been coexisting for some time, gaining popularity and acceptance since the pivotal era of the 1960s. This may serve as “evidence” that both art and science have grown from their traditional roots in ways to promote the welfare of others. Maybe it’s just my hunch.

John M. Majer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Harry S. Truman College
Chicago, IL USA

By: Harriet J. Melrose

Harriet J. Melrose — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:34:18 +0000

I think it’s an excellent essay and an excellent piece of writing. I don’t agree with any of your parallels between art and science. Scientists and artists are very different. I think, in science and math, in the laboratory when trying to work out a new formula or axiom, there may be a muse-like experience in coming to the final piece of the equation, but in general I think scientists and artists are totally different species.

By: Madison S.

Madison S. — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:19:45 +0000

I really enjoyed reading this blog entry. I think the principles of the book were eloquently woven into a thought-provoking, ‘meta’ idea. I would compare it to saying that a strawberry and an apple are similar. They taste and look different, but at their cores, they are both fruits, as they both have seeds. This was a great read!

By: George Allen

George Allen — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:49:44 +0000

Unique perspective