Category: 12/10

Humans have a tradition of seeking explanations for the world’s workings; we have been searching for answers to limitless questions for thousands of years. One of the primary means of explanation has been the sciences. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.: all provide humans with effective ways to rationalize the world. Since humans long for simplicity over complexity, they will naturally be more attracted to concrete answers rather than abstract ideas. This is where the arts meet difficulties in mainstream acceptance. While science gives facts, evidence, laws, and theorems, laid out and accepted by the majority, art presents us with abstract ideas and interpretation. Even the most straightforward of paintings may be interpreted in different ways.

The problem of individual interpretation separates art from science, but in some ways unifies them as well. Many refined practices in science are referred to as “arts” and involve interpretation. Humans decide what to take away from scientific data, just as they do from a painting. Also, human error is not unknown from science. As Lehrer’s quote points out, no measurement can be perfect. This is due to a combination of human error as well as inability; humans do not possess the ability to measure absolutely perfectly, as the decimal point being measured to can never extend to the infinity mark required for perfection.

While art sometimes unites an audience and its creator in a basic emotion, its trademark seems to be the vast spectrum of reactions along which it sweeps people, rather than a fixed, specific thought to which it targets them. If art simply reflected reality, if it did not depend upon the idiosyncrasies of each artist, no one should attempt to paint another oak tree. It’s been done before; that bark, those leaves can certainly mean no more today than yesterday, if the view is all the same. But it is not. Staggering infinite possibilities of human perspective inform and produce art. More than art helps us to see the oak tree – how green a leaf may be, how its color changes with the season, how its shadow falls and ripples on a lake – art helps us see each other and ourselves – how we fear, embrace change, death, loss, the unknown, growth, stability, peace, shelter, beauty. But if successful, it rarely tells us how to see, but rather asks. It proposes something our minds may nibble and gnaw at for moments, months, lives.

Science permits us another strain of understanding. It gives us problems and questions as well, but unites us in answers and facts upon which we may stand, speak, search, from which we may climb together to continue and progress. It gives us relations and regularities upon which to depend, ways we may all see things the same. We choose science as our main method of understanding the world because it is more reliable than art, and because it affects the physical nature of our existence in such drastic ways. No one gets the leisure time to create much culture or art if no one’s figured out how to cultivate plants or cure and prevent some basic illnesses. But beyond these practical considerations, science also often gives us the very basis we require for art. We must all understand the concept of oak tree and shadow and perspective before we can add human meaning to the tree’s representation or distortion in art.

When we try to understand how the world functions, we turn to science over art for a few reasons. One such reason is that science is exact, while art is open to discussion. When scientists calculate how much energy is given off by a certain reaction or what the yearly increase in world temperature is, these values are exact. The scientists use formulas that provide values that are known to be correct because these formulas have been proven to work consistently and properly over time. On the other hand, art is subject to interpretation. Even a simple drawing can be interpreted hundreds of ways by different people. Each person would have his or her own opinion about what the drawing depicts and means to him or her. This type of ambiguity in meaning is not possible in science, where there is only one answer to a problem. You cannot provide five different values as answers on a chemistry exam; there is only one correct solution.

Nevertheless, what art lacks in exactness, it makes up for it in aiding science. When a new building is to be constructed, thinking of the design for the building is art. When the architect is drawing up blueprints for the building and attempting to think of ways to make the building stand out among the other buildings in the area, he or she is an artist at that moment. Once the design is established, it takes science to work out the mathematics involved in constructing a building, such as which angles the components must be positioned so as not to cause the building to collapse. In this way, science and art work in harmony to produce a beautiful, stable building.

Why do so many universities create “Arts and Sciences” programs? Why does a biology major graduate with a “Bachelor of the Arts” degree? Why are these two seemingly opposite fields squished together so often?

Scholars in every field have the same goal; they strive to understand how the world works. A microbiologist does this broadly; he studies earth’s diversity. An artist does it on a smaller scale; he studies how his environment affects his perceptions and emotions. The large, concretely calculated, and often-observable models of science cannot serve humanity without the structural support of art. Conversely, the products of less-calculated creativity cannot serve humanity without the larger plans of science. The two go hand in hand.

Yes, we can measure emotions; we can analyze the readings of an EEG. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to explain a mathematical theorem because, when applied to a physical situation, it can produce unexpected results. This, however, is the point. Using both art and science produces a much more complete picture of our world than using either art or science alone.

I entered this class believing that art is a poor use of resources, but that it is acceptable because it gives work to those who are uninterested in the sciences. I could not have been more wrong. This semester’s exposure has shown me that free minds, minds that are not restricted by rules, models, and data, are infinitely valuable. I still believe that the creativity that goes into science is extremely undervalued, but I now understand that art’s purpose is undervalued as well. Art is often planned and calculated, while science is often spontaneous. A simple spectrum, such as the one in the “who gets to call it art” movie, takes hours of experimentation.

So, alright, I’ll ask it:

Why not?