It is often said and believed that any object of earth is generally viewed differently by an artist and a scientist. Even the earth itself, human beings, living and non-living bodies create different perceptions to these two groups of viewers due to differential views.
Is it really so?
Can a person be an artist or a scientist at the same time?
Interesting Question Sir.
Artists take things very lightly whereas scientific mind is very complex.
Dear Dr. Sharangi,
The example of a single man can answer your question. If we analyse contribution of Leonardo da Vinci, we must say that scientist may have the eyes of an artist. Many great scientists were great painting and music lover also.
Thanks.
Yes, a person can be an artist and scientist at the same time. Though, it is a rare combination.
Many of us have made the assumption that scientists are a bit rigid and less artistic than others. Artists, on the other hand, are often seen as being less rational than the rest of us. But, It’s all about perception. Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. Both artists and scientists strive to see the world in new ways, and to communicate that vision. Artists and scientists often need to invent new concepts and technologies to accomplish their goals. There is no difference between science and art when it comes to creativeness, productiveness, to come to conclusions and to formulations. After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved science and art tend to coalesce in aesthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are artists as well.
Thanks.
A scientist's view, in my opinion, deals with facts and theories which are tangible and which can be proved by equations and established laws of science. Art is something which can be ethereal, which does not necessarily confirm to any set laws and which does not need a rational understanding to appreciate.
What evidence is there that this assertion of difference is 'widely believed ( ... as a 'scientist' ). But if one had that belief, one would probably be somewhat ignorant of the sheer amount of discipline implicit and explicit technological knowledge needed to execute an artistic vision and bring it into the world. And the inverse, one would be oblivious to how some scientific concept can present in a dream ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekul%C3%A9#Kekul%C3%A9's_dream ).
If there is such an asserted difference, it is more the product of indoctrination, overspecialization, or narrowness of experience for the disadvantaged individual. Anecdotally, tutoring math to someone who has an artistic bent in music, dance, drawing, etc. is very much easier because they already have most skills and concepts already in place, I merely have to link them up with vocabulary - the inverse is also true, given the freedom and some basic technique, most math and science progress rapidly.
In a way, such an assertion might be similar to other forms of bigotry, assigning people to fabricated categories which ignore the incredible variations of individual capacities.