Science vs. Art

People tend to choose science over art to “replicate our understanding” because science is guaranteed. Science is defined. Science is consistent. When you use art to define something, you will get something different every single time. For example, at the Works and Process on October 3rd at the Guggenheim, when two choreographers were asked to create dances from the same music, two very different dances were produced from the same song. Next to that, even after creating different results, the interpretation of one thing could lead to many different However, in science, when asked to do a lab experiment, if done properly, ever result would be the same or would resemble each other. We choose science because it provides a consistent, universal explanation. We choose science because it defeats the time barrier. Art, while one could argue that it defeats the time barrier, in that people still appreciate the artwork hundreds of years later, still is subject to different interpretations due to the society which we live in. Recently, especially in the 20th century, America and the world in general have seen vast changes in how we view things. This will without a doubt influence how artwork is seen. If the views and interpretations of artwork change throughout time and from country to country, how can you use it to describe our understanding of the world around us?

In fairness, this does leave the uneducated out of the question. Also, art can have some aspects that rarely change. For example, “cold” colors to represent sadness. For argument sake, photography, a form of art, showed Americans about the atrocities in Vietnam, of the Industrial Revolution, and other events. It wasn’t science that taught humans compassion. It wasn’t a mathematical function that helped the populous realize our countries mistakes. If we look for a precise understanding, look to science. In terms of replicating emotional understanding, one should look to art.