It’s certainly a knee-jerk reaction to say that science and art have nothing in common. I’m reminded of Richard Feynman’s opinion on this. An artistically-inclined  friend of Feynman’s told him that a flower to an artist is so much more beautiful than a flower to a scientist. Feynman’s retort was, as a scientist, he understood the various processes behind the flower, and it became all the more beautiful for it. Science is about understanding our environment. But for many, it’s a difficult process to internalize and when a student is faced with paragraphs and blocks of words, they quickly lose interest. Art, on the other hand, is something intuitively grasped. It speaks to the viewer on an emotional level and inspires them.  I loved “The Art of The Brain: “Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art”  for talking about whether or not aesthetically-pleasing scientific data can be considered artwork.

The difficulty with statistics is they are hard to empathize with. If you stare at numbers for a significant amount of time, they devolve into meaningless digits. By presenting findings in a pleasing manner, you can inspire those reviewing your data. Art can inspire an interest in science, and science can enhance the aesthetics of art.

I went on a guided tour of the Metropolitan Museum of Art this morning, and when the guide talked about the perfect balance and proportions of a statue, it really made me wonder how closely interrelated science and art were. A sculptor can look to the anatomy of the human body to enhance their work, making better artwork. A casual observer can be inspired by the artwork to understand the math and proportions behind the masterpiece. Art can inspire understanding of science, and science can enhance artworks. It’s a symbiotic relationship.