It’s instinctive to think of science and art as two separate entities. Science is logical-it employs reason and observations to describe and explain the world around us. Art is passionate and emotional-it is meant to affect us in some way that prompts us to ponder what the art is displaying. However, after considering the relationship between art and science and reading “Art as a Way of Knowing” and “The ArT of The BrAin:“Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art,” I came to the conclusion that science and art have a unique relationship with one another. Although it may be hard to see at first, they cannot exist without each other. Science is art, and art is science. Both science and art are fundamental parts of being human. How we interpret our world is a direct result of how science and art are influencing our own perspective. I really liked how Ashely Taylor successfully disproved the hypotheses that differentiate science from art because she opened my eyes to see that science and art are truly interchangeable. For example, the first hypothesis stated that science is done for a scientific purpose, and art for an artistic one. What does this even mean? This seemed like a tautological statement to me. Both science and art are ultimately hoping to communicate a particular idea to the audience—this is the true unifying purpose of science and art. Just because something is logical and tries to prove or display or explain a certain fact/idea doesn’t mean that it can’t be aesthetically pleasing and culturally relevant. And consequently, just because a piece of art doesn’t employ the scientific method doesn’t mean science wasn’t used in the creation and observation of the piece. In fact, in order to even describe the relationship between art and science, one must first define what “art” and “science” even mean. There is no one correct answer here, so how can we distinguish art from science and vice versa? My thought? We can’t, and that’s the beauty of science and art.
It’s difficult to describe my connection to art since now I can’t stop thinking about how art is everywhere around me. Actually, this topic-the relationship between science and art-makes me think back to the first Macaulay Seminar we took exactly a year ago, during which we were attempting to define art, and we were discovering that it was an extremely difficult task to do. As I previously wrote in a critical analysis paper, “Defining ‘art’ is something not easily done. Many people differ on what is and isn’t art because each person’s perspective of art is unique. However, it is no question that art significantly impacts our lives. Art is created, observed, contemplated, and discussed; art influences, conveys, entertains, and inspires. Art is ubiquitous–it is all around us and truthfully, anything can be made into art.” Science is art. Art is science.
