The Unification of Art and Science

In today’s society, the fields or art and science are usually considered to by self-standing, but it hasn’t always been this way. Not long ago, completing a college education meant becoming familiar with every academic discipline. Anyone who attended a university took classes in literature, art, and science, so they could converse intelligently on any subject.

One reason this was possible in the past is that many fields had not developed to their current level of detail. For example, the field of biology has amassed so much information that it has now been fractured into dozens of specialized disciplines. In response, even basic instruction in biology has become specialized and must omit a great deal from a student’s biology instruction.

Most universities offer a biology degree that is supposed to give students a basic understanding of the most common biological sub-fields, and in addition, most programs offer elective classes in more specialized sub-fields. Some universities, like the University of Champain - Illinois offer undergraduate degrees in specialized biological disciplines like entomology.

Human culture has witnessed a virtual explosion in knowledge that makes it very difficult for an undergraduate student to gain an understanding of all academic fields. In order to obtain a degree in science, a student must severely limit his or her exploration of the arts. There’s simply not enough time for most students to become familiar with both the sciences and the arts.

A few centuries ago it was common for an academician to be skilled in all disciplines, and some very talented individuals became famous for their work in both the arts and sciences. Leonardo daVinci is famous for his amazing painting ability, but he was also a brilliant scientist who made lasting discoveries in many scientific fields. The German poet Goethe also had many accomplishments in both the arts and the sciences.

Today art and science are separated by a wide gap. Some artists work with scientists, such as realistic illustrators that create images of plants and animals for technical publications. Some scientists are skilled in artistry as well, but these are the rare exceptions. For the most part, scientists and artists stay in their own disciplines without venturing into each other’s territory.

Both art and science are ways of describing aspects of the human experience of nature and life. Art translates the artist’s textural and emotional experience of nature into something personal that can be shared with others. Science attempts to translate the experience of nature in a formulaic way that can be understood by anyone who takes the time to learn the formulas. Both use individual methodologies and arrive at unique perspectives about the phenomenon in question.

Science stresses the agreement of a group of observers studying a phenomenon. Toward this end, scientists use formulas and set systems of rules to classify their observations and then search for areas of agreement and disagreement to further develop and refine their observations. This method is used to arrive at a final observation that everyone can agree on.

Artists do not seek an explanation of a phenomenon but rather they seek to express their subjective experience without trying to transmit the same experience to other observers. An artist’s vision expresses a personal experience that the artist had when encountering the phenomenon, and allows others to have their own unique experiences when they observe the same phenomenon and when they observe the artist’s work. It is doubtful that any two artists would describe the same phenomenon in the same way.

There is another similarity between art and science that stems from the process of creation and innovation. Some theorists, like Steven Jay Gould and Edward O. Wilson have found that the processes of artistic creation and scientific discovery share a similar mental property. In these theorists’ vision, the same mental processes that allow an artist to create a work that is truly innovative and unique also operate in the mind of a scientist making a new discovery. Wilson says that scientists must have a sort of creative artistic vision to reach a mental state where they can make new discoveries. Many scientists, such as physicists Albert Einstein and Roger Penrose, have confirmed these ideas, saying that their own discoveries seem to come from nowhere. One moment the scientist is working on research, and the next moment he seems to see all of the facts in a new way, realizing something new about the phenomenon.

Artists often say the same thing about their artistry. The inspiration for their art comes from some sensory experience, but their minds seem to make sudden leaps, allowing them to see the phenomenon in a new way.

In his book “Picasso at the Lapin Agale,” writer and comedian Steve Martin discusses a fictional meeting between Albert Einstein and Picasso during which the two men learn that the sensation that Einstein felt when he made the discovery of his relativity theory was the same as the feeling that Picasso felt when he created some of his best works. Martin wanted to communicate the idea that genius always works in the same way; whether it is artistic genius or intellectual genius there is a certain mental property that they have in common.

It seems that scientists and artists are after the same thing; both want to reach a mental state of innovation where the artist can create and the scientist can discover, and both can feel a special sense of connection to their environments. With all this similarity it’s surprising that today the realms of art and science rarely find common ground.

Some modern scientists are finding ways to connect with nature that are completely different from the way most scientists or artists do their work. Nigel Hoffman describes himself as a phenomenologist, meaning he studies wholeness in nature, observing complete phenomena instead of breaking them down scientifically as most scientists tend to do. Hoffman and some other scientists are beginning to combine artwork into their scientific investigations, and they believe that this practice allows them to make important new developments in science.

Nigel Hoffmann studies plants using a method that most scientists would consider very unusual. Hoffmann begins studying plants using the usual methods of observation and data collection. Then he diverges from traditional scientific method by sketching and painting his subject. For Hoffman, this part of the process is as essential to scientific exploration as the collection of data. Hoffman believes his drawings and paintings help to cement the details of the plant in his mind. He believes that while artistically studying the phenomenon, he is exercising and using parts of his mind that would not otherwise be used, thereby adding a new dimension to his exploration.

After Hoffman has practiced drawing his specimen, he finalizes his investigation by composing poetry about his subject. Many scientists would say that while it may be interesting to add an artistic poem to your investigation, it has nothing to do with science. Hoffman believes that his poetry is an indispensable part of his scientific exploration. Hoffman also considers poetry to be a legitimate ending to his experiments. In his mind the poem represents the “theory” or the essence of the plant.

It is impossible to describe exactly what Hoffman means by the plant’s “theory” in the way he experiences it, but it is clear from his work that his “experiments” allow him to predict certain features of the plant’s ecology. For instance, after Hoffman has studied a plant species in his unique way he feels that he has an understanding of the nature or essence of the plant, and therefore can predict where the plant is likely to be found, what kind of soil it might prefer, or even which types of plants would be likely to grow nearby. Hoffman feels that his phenomenological approach reveals the plant’s nature in a way that is alien to the normal scientific method.

Even if we do not accept the radical approach of Hoffman and other phenomenologists, we can still recognize the similarities that art and science have and appreciate the common thought processes that give rise to both. Art and science are not as disparate as they sometimes appear, and it follows that education in one might lead to greater aptitude in the other. Perhaps artists trained to understand science might find their art invigorated by a new a more comprehensive understanding of nature. Likewise, scientists who hone their skills in the arts might find themselves reaching new levels of understanding in their own discipline.