Far from just killing the cat, curiosity enabled western civilization to develop along previously unforeseen paths. In their attempts to understand life, the universe and everything, European Enlightenment intellectuals turned their attention away from mysticism and metaphysics to examine instead the realities of the natural order.
It is not a coincidence that during the 16th century, the dawn of the Enlightenment period, the first ‘pure’ landscape painting emerged through experimentation. Free from the constraints of having to view the world through theological spectacles, artists were able to apply their curiosity to the material world.
One impulse then, gave rise to what we now recognize as science and the arts.
Of course paths each discipline has since taken bear very different road-markings. Whereas science became the foundation for technological developments, industry, algorithmic models of business and global trade, art became a commodity, and an end in itself.
Science is often regarded as the preserve of an ‘elite’ and of little interest to the average person. As Josh Braun, science/technology editor of the Daily Nexus, writes: ‘Science, math, and engineering are three fields in which people make the assumption that what you don’t know can’t hurt you.’
By contrast, it is a widely held perception that ‘art is for everyone.’ An unscientific experiment to demonstrate the disparity between how art and science are regarded is to enter two Google searches for the exact phrases ‘art is for everyone’ and ‘science is for everyone.’ The returned search results are 10,300 for ‘art’ compared with 346 for ‘science.’
Yet regardless of public perception the interrelationship between art and science is complex and unavoidable. The structure of the science-art relationship has traditionally been one of subservience on the part of science, with artists utilizing the products of science, as well as drawing inspiration from scientific theory, to create art.
Contemporary artists have even begun to use science in a more direct sense by taking raw scientific data and transforming it into, or in some cases simply presenting it as art. Musicians and music theorists find that advances, and limitations, in computer technology increasingly govern their work. Science has also benefited art through its application in solving art-related problems, as wonderfully demonstrated by the Texas art-lovers and astronomers dubbed ‘astro-sleuths.’
Traditionally the pervading view has been that art has contributed less to the advancement of science than vice versa. In a paper exploring the arts-science interface, David Peat begs to differ, defending the argument advanced by painter Patrick Heron that artists create experiences that can alter a person’s outlook, and that in doing so can bring about a change in the way people think. In this way, artists have a part to play in creating the conditions that lead to advancement.
The argument has additional credence if one accepts that imagination and ‘thought experiments’ were responsible for many of the scientific and philosophical advances made in modern history, long before the empirical (scientific) evidence was available.
At the level of providing stimulus for thought both science and art play a vital role. But whilst studying astrophysics should send your brain into overdrive, art can be the stimulus that gets you thinking in the first place.
In the closing decades of the twentieth century scientists began to realign themselves with art in unprecedented numbers. Both as a result of exploring the same
Artists have always a long tradition of employing science in the creation of new works. It is refreshing and appropriate that artists now assist their scientific counterparts in curiosity to ensure that scientific knowledge is put back in the hands and minds of all citizens, in accordance with the vision of Enlightenment thinkers upon which the constitution of the United States was founded.
