Science is about fact…until it’s no longer a fact.
Art is about arguing meanings, feelings, and contesting views.
Science is about understanding the world, what’s in it, what’s beyond it.
Art is about searching within, expanding the world, and determining perceptions.
Science is about natural order.
Art is about justification of thought.
Science is about advancing, moving forward, discovery.
Art is about searching, moving in all directions, discovery.
Science is about reason and development.
Art is about reason and development.
Science is creative.
Art is creative.
Science is about discovering significance.
Art is about giving significance.
Science is about forming probabilities.
Art is about endless possibilities.
Science doesn’t need Art, but it likes having Art around.
Art doesn’t need Science, but it likes having Science around.
You know, I don’t see what all the fuss is about Science vs. Art. They just both want to get along.
[Update: In The Guardian, Tim Radford agrees.]
[Update: I saw this on Presentation Zen...
'Science or art? A ridiculous choice. The arts and sciences are connected. And our mission, says Dr. [Mae] Jemison, is to reconcile and reintegrate science and the arts. Both the arts and the sciences, says Dr. Jemison, are not merely connected but manifestations of the same thing — they are our attempt to build an understanding of the universe, and our attempt to influence things (things in the universe internal to ourselves and the universe external to ourselves). “The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity — [they] are our attempt as humans to build an understanding of the world around us….”‘]
16 Comments
16 March, 2008 at 10:25 am
Hi Martin, I’m with you on this one. I’m a Sports Scientist so believe that science underpins sporting movement, but there is definitely an art to perfecting the same movements.
The term kinaesthetic awareness is perfect for describing this…”the ability of the body to receive and respond to stimuli, knowing which part of the body is moving, where it is moving and how it is moving.”
Let them live in harmony I say.
17 March, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I couldn’t agree more with you, Daniel.
I studied English while my wife studied Biology. And we get on just great. What more proof is needed?
By the way, I like your workout/training site. You have yourself a new feed subscriber.
19 May, 2008 at 10:13 am
You’re clearly an arts student. Well, most of the statements are false and blatently biased.
25 May, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for your comment, John. Can you elaborate further?
The post is only a light-hearted piece. But I do believe Science and Art want to get along. Come on, let’s shake hands!
13 January, 2009 at 7:52 pm
[...] final diagnosis, though, is an outcome of art, as suggested by art’s purpose, defined in the site,http://theuniversityblog.co.uk/2008/03/14/science-vs-art/, that Dwayne Myhre, a fellow student, used earlier. In this site, art is said to be about [...]
23 February, 2009 at 5:36 am
Art often uses science but science has never used art
24 February, 2009 at 11:40 am
James, while I think your statement is too sweeping, I thought this would be a good place to mention an art/science debate that’s currently taking place:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/24/homeopathy-science
More art than science? More science than art? Or, indeed, art using science and science having none of it?
25 February, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And here’s another one…
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/02/think_of_the_childre.html
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/
Hopefully I’m not moving entirely off the point. I never know whether to be amused or annoyed about these stories.
4 May, 2009 at 1:34 am
[...] The University Blog: Science vs. Art Blog. 14 March 2008. Available from: http://theuniversityblog.co.uk/2008/03/14/science-vs-art/. (Retrieved 1 March [...]
29 July, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Does it really matter which discipline is better. Neither are guaranted to put money in your pocket so I don’t see why their is competition. People should study what it is they want to study and not something which is persieved to be a difficult subject.
8 August, 2009 at 11:06 am
[...] The University Blog: Science vs. Art Blog. 14 March 2008. Available from: http://theuniversityblog.co.uk/2008/03/14/science-vs-art/. (Retrieved 1 March [...]
11 August, 2009 at 3:24 am
I think your dualistic perspective is a too simplistic perspective.
11 August, 2009 at 6:32 am
@Grant, that’s fair enough. As a light hearted post, it wasn’t meant to cover all the arguments or be particularly conclusive…just open up a bit of a conversation. I’d love for you to add your perspective to the comments. What’s your take?
2 November, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Only an art student would view art and science as equals.
Art programs are for kids that couldn’t make it into any other faculty.
3 November, 2009 at 9:17 am
I’ve said all I need to say on that in the comments already. Still, thanks for dropping by and leaving your thoughts, Matthew.
5 January, 2010 at 12:03 pm
[...] 9. Science vs. Art [...]
Comments are closed.