I’ve been exploring this question for a long time. Actually it is a set of questions because it concerns goals, practices, behaviors, methodologies, etc. But here are a few ideas.
Both science and art are systematic. Both ask questions and are exploratory in nature, and demand rigor.
Both science and art build. The scientist or artist builds a body of work, a set of inquiries, and a practice.
Both science and art are referential. Practitioners in both disciplines use the past to bring the present into being.
Both science and art are experimental. There is always a give-and-take, always a risk for failure and the hope of success
In my opinion both disciplines also are prone to a severe failing. They both can become canalized, as a set of individuals come to conceptualize only within a given range of ideas. Both disciplines tend to be prescriptive in this way and can discourage creative thinking outside the box.
Just a few short thoughts jotted down in the morning.
Do you know the Sculpture Lightning Field, interesting science and art admix.. there are not many photos on flickr but this clip is quite good.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM5zW6VIhzk
ReplyDelete