Daniel Bibawy

My idea of art has always been a little different than what most people view art as, I think. I’ve always thought of art as subjective, meaning what a person thinks is art can be art to that person. There is no definition of art and it cannot be something that is set in stone. What one person thinks art is, another might not consider to be art at all.

I think what I really learned from these articles is the methods to how science and art is created. One thing I learned is the reason most people don’t view science as art is because they think of science as some complex, formal process and art as a free-flowing, easy process. I personally do not agree with this view at all. Growing up, I’ve always had a much harder time in my art classes than my science classes. In elementary school and junior high, I never received a higher mark in my art classes than in my science classes. In fact, I thought of the two with opposite views than the ones of the general public shown in these articles. I thought of art as a tedious process where everything had to be done systematically and science was an easier process where you can just imagine everything and flow through it. For example, in “On the Art of the Brain,” one portion of the article discusses the hypothesis how science has specific methods it follows and art does not and I don’t agree with this at all. Science is the one that doesn’t have a specific pattern. It’s different every time. Art has to follow a guideline. However, neither is as one dimensional as I’m making it out to be. Science can easily be viewed as art, and it often is to me. A perfect example of this is the “Brainbow.” Few people would argue both the scientific and artistic characteristics to this.