Mary-Katherine Alger
Elisha Emerson
ENG 110
22 October 2018
It is often thought that art and science are one two opposite ends of a spectrum, that there is a dichotomy between these two disciplines. However, is this true? Art and science are certainly different, but that does not mean that they cannot work together. Science especially could use some of the unique advantages of art when it comes to gaining a whole understanding of something. Artists and scientists have a lot to learn from each other and could benefit greatly from interacting more often.
One of the ways the arts can help everyone, especially those in science fields, is through a teaching of empathy. Often, science deals with the quantitative aspects of something; 1 in x children in America are hungry, xxx,xxx people in America are homeless, 1 in x women has experienced sexual assault in their life. These statistics are effective for grasping the range of an issue, but oftentimes they leave out the most important part: what it’s actually like to live with hunger, or homelessness, or to be sexually assaulted. The whole issue can’t be understood without understanding the experiences of people first. This part of the equation can best be understood through the artistic medium, whether it be someone writing about their experiences, creating a painting to convey the emotions of the experience, or any other form of art. This stance has even been supported by scientific evidence. In “Necessary Edges: Arts, Empathy, and Education”, Yo-Yo Ma states that, “Advances in neurobiology make it clear that we humans have dual neural pathways, one for critical thinking and one for empathetic thinking. Only one pathway can be activated at a time, so when one is on, the other is off. Yet we are also aware that wise and balanced judgement results from integrating the critical and empathetic, taking emotions as well as reason into account.” Science and critical thinking are only half of what makes someone understand something and the other half is art and empathy. Art and science, critical thinking and empathy, can create a greater understanding of something, but only when they are used together to achieve the same goal.
Some people even believe that it would be beneficial to integrate a “STEAM” education into schools. A STEAM education would be the average STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education that most high school and college students receive, but with added arts classes. Some go as far to say that “STEAM will help us get there by resolving the education problem. Kids will then go to school because it is a passion, not a requirement.” (Yo-Yo Ma) STEAM in public schools would certainly help to foster empathy in students and make some of them more excited to go to school. For students that enjoy art, art classes in their high school curriculum “Advances in neurobiology make it clear that we humans have dual neural pathways, one for critical thinking and one for empathetic thinking.”would make them happier to go to school. However, the precious time and energy of students must be considered if this were to ever be implemented into required college classes. For students that don’t enjoy art and don’t absolutely require it for their future job, required art classes would just mean less electives, less time, and higher tuition. These extra classes may even make students less passionate about school, as they now have more classes about topics that don’t interest them. Art classes may help students’ understanding of the world and empathy, but it should by no means be a required part of their curriculum, as it won’t be required for most students’ future employment.
In addition, science must be careful not to let art taint its pursuit of objectivity. While art can be used to gain a better understanding of something, it should not be a replacement for hard data, but rather a supplement. “A good scientist does not allow personal feelings to get in the way of evidence.” (Boslough) The preservation of the scientific method and objectivity is crucial to science-without it, we can’t even call it science. The subjectivity of art can’t be mixed in with the objectivity of science, what we feel is true shouldn’t be confused with what is actually true. However, the subjectivity of art can be supplemented into science.
One example of something that could benefit from the cooperation of science and art is scientists using art to both understand and convey their scientific theories and findings. This would mainly be through using metaphors or visual aids to help understand theories about things that humans can’t normally understand, like the size of things in the universe or quantum mechanics. This kind of understanding through art has precedent in pre-existing theories, such as Schrodinger’s cat in quantum observance. They have also been understood through visual art, as with Neil Bohr’s understanding of electrons. “What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it.” More complex scientific theories are often difficult to understand, not only for people who are not in the field, but also for the people who actually create the theories. This cooperation between science and art must be continued to further the understanding of the universe.
In a time when public support for science is waning, real scientific research needs to be supported more than ever. An effective way to do that would be to promote scientific findings through art. Art could be created, whether it be paintings, posters, books, or movies, that educates people about climate change or anything else important. There are likely already artists who care deeply about the wellbeing of science and are promoting it on their own accord, but I think it would be incredibly effective to have these kinds of pieces sponsored by scientists. Not only would this increase the likelihood that an artist would create art about the topic, but it may also increase the accuracy of the piece of art, as they could work directly with scientists who may have more knowledge than they do about it. If science was promoted like this, it would increase the scientific education of the public, and might even make some people interested in participating in research. Overall it would benefit both parties, as artists would get paid for talking about something they are passionate about, and scientists would work towards their goal of educating humanity.
Art and science should be kept separate in certain scenarios, but each has a lot to gain from the other. If each discipline continues to only consider each other separately, it will make it much more difficult to understand the world as a whole. Science should strive to work with art to improve its theories, public perception, and overall understanding.
Works Cited
Boslough, Mark B. “We Must Protect U.S. Investment In Scientific Knowledge”. APS News, 1996, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199603/investment.cfm. Accessed 23 Oct 2018.
Lehrer, Jonah. “The Future Of Science…Is Art?”. Seedmagazine.Com, 2018, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_future_of_science_is_art/. Accessed 23 Oct 2018.
