Art and science are two fields which are very distant from some points of view, and very closely related from other points of view. When pursuing models for the world, people will always refer to science. This is simply because science uses exact mathematical models. Science leads to precise calculations based upon our understanding of the world and how accurate our models are. If our current model fails to explain an observed phenomenon, then the model will change and grow increasingly complex in order to incorporate all possible scenarios. If I throw a ball in the air at a 45 degree angle with a given initial velocity, science will tell me exactly how, when, and where that ball will land.
Art is interpretative; it allows the viewer to extract a range of meanings from any given work. When transitioning from science to art, precision is lost. Art is not exact, and when trying to describe and represent our world, people require exact and accurate models. If I threw a ball at an angle, art would tell me the ball will go up and fall down. It may tell me a range of things about the ball’s motion, but it would never tell me exactly where and how it will land like science can. Art, however, is truly useful for those aspects of the world that cannot be quantified: those items which we cannot use numbers to represent. Feelings, thoughts, emotions, ideas. “How sad are you feeling?” “Oh, today? I think I’d say I’m a 7.” People don’t use numbers for these aspects of life because it is impossible to do so. Art tries to explain and communicate the ideas and emotions of a person. Not a single mathematical theorem will ever be able to communicate sadness. Countless artworks today, however, are able to express this (and any given) emotion with just a single look. From this point of view, art also tries to explain the world just as science does. Art and science, however, simply try to explain different aspects of the world.
