Art and Science: A Symbiotic Relationship

So, as luck would have it, art and science might not be all that different. Certainly, art is generally qualitatively evaluated, while science is judged quantitatively, but according to Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein at Michigan State University, artists and scientists share many of the same “thinking tools.” He recently suggested the possibility of an NEA-NSF (National Science Foundation) partnership to promote the “melding” of arts and sciences. Root-Bernstein has cited the development of tools such as the stethoscope, the laryngoscope, and even camouflage as examples of “artists, working as artists,” making direct contributions to science. He also suggested that drawing attention to such “cross-fertilization” may be beneficial in demonstrating the importance of the arts.

The composer Milton Babbitt often made comparisons between music and science. His argument didn't concern the creative thinking process, but rather the specialization of music and science. Many people argue music that is too difficult for most people to understand (and therefore inaccessible) has no place in society. Babbitt, however, argued that advanced physics and chemistry utilize concepts that are too involved for most people to understand, yet there is always support for these specialists to do research, so why should music be any different?

Obviously, Dr. Root-Bernstein's argument is of a much different nature, but it's still interesting to see people acknowledging the numerous similarities between art and science. Each one influences the other, but both are extremely important even without considering the other. As the title of the recent NEA blog entry suggests, art and science exhibit a “symbiotic” relationship. Hopefully, more people in this country can be exposed to this type of thinking.

http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html

http://www.arts.gov/artworks/?p=6141