MC Escher is a Mathemetician who uses drawing to illustrate mathematical impossibilities.
Michael Crichton is a medical doctor who uses writing to explore science and technological wonders.
These are off the top of my head…
Some would say that the ability to see patterns in scientific data or mathematical formulae is “an art”. But this may be stretching it a bit.
Like Narile said, many scientists are amateur/hobbyist artists. But I think the answer to your question is that, to be really good at something, you need to specialize (or dedicate your time) in that one area. So, most people will choose a career to focus on and then pursue their other interests in their spare time.
And then there’s DaVinci…
Science does not “use” art per se; art is not used in that way. However, the creative process is necessary and useful in everyday life, as well as in science.
Although I’m not a scientist or doctor, I would quickly point out that just about every scientific discipline requires creative thinking in order to postulate a theory and then seek ways to prove the theory.
Engineers must use abstract and creative thinking to solve complex problems, like bringing home the Apollo 13 Astronauts safely.
Medical doctors play music while operating (AHA a direct use of art!). Also, doctors are likely to be creative during operations, like finding creative solutions to complicated proceedures, and compensating for unforseen circumstances.
Plastic surgeons are modern sculptors.
Any of these work for you?
My 2 cents:
The main way science and art are fundamentally different is that the artist creates and the scientist observes. Any artist worth his weight in Bob Ross videos will put a piece of himself in his craft. This also means that art is invariably a product of the culture in which the artist has lived. Ideally, science should avoid these aspects. The scientist needs to remove himself from his observation (Heisenberg notwithstanding). The results should transcend personal and cultural biases. Since Millikan predicted the charge of an electron in 1909, culture has changed a great deal and art along with it. Yet measuring the charge of an electron in the present day will pretty much give the same result that Millie got almost 100 years ago, despite the differences in the experimental method used to determine that value or the cultural milleu of the scientist using that method.
But (and this is a big but) what makes a good scientist as well as a good artist, in my mind, are 1) a unique perspective of the universe, 2) the ability to convey that unique perspective, and if you’re really good 3) the ability to change the way humanity in general views the universe. Both Dali and Einstein had revolutionary perspectives of reality. Einstein conveyed his unique perspective through mathematical equations and elegant thought experiments, while Dali used Freudian imagery and melting timepieces.
So much of our present views of the universe are the result of the revelations provided by an ingenious artist or scientist. There was a time where people weren’t aware of many things we now take for granted: scientific concepts such as benzene rings, vaccination, a universal speed limit, molecules shaped like double helices, and black holes or artistic concepts like vanishing points, minor chords, literary antiheros, break beats or jump cuts.
IMO, an artist who has a knowledge of science can be more effective at stirring an emotion and a scientist who has a appreciation of art can comprehend more elegant models of the universe.
So science and art are quite different, yet intertwined.
Minor point, but Escher was not a mathematician:
Another minor point: Michael Crichton is not an artist, at least not as a writer.
A writer creates art by making his words resonate between the page and the mind. The language must sing and mutter, rumble and scream.
Crichton writes to a formula… the language in his stories is, at best, adequate to the task of conveying the plot and story. He is a newspaper novelist, aimed at the lowest common denominator of literacy.
Creative writing (fiction) is not a form of Art? Yikes. This is news to me.
Then I guess you’d have to discredit most, if not all, musicians who compose to a “formula.”
As far as Dali goes:
Fuck Dali, who was born dead,
his heart bent like the hands of his clock.
How long can one man's death rattle go on?
Ah, he's finally where he deserves to be;
his canvasses windless and flat, hung
on the walls of boredom...
-- from Lament For Lorca
© 1999 by John MacKenzie
And Einstein:
The old man with white wild hair insists
The faster I go, the heavier I get
-- from Lamentations at Gravity's Feet
© 2000 by John MacKenzie
I lean the way you’re falling, Alphagene. In my mind science and art are knotted, coupled, circling, combining and recombining in some strange fertility rite.
Yes, Phobos, “And then there’s DaVinci…” Maybe that’s what I am looking for, some evidence, some sign that there is or will be another one like him.
Hey, Wrath… try reading the black stuff.
-
I did not say fiction is not a form of art. I said Michael Crichton, as a novelist, is not an artist.
-
In art, any art, a formula is useful as a starting point. Art exists in the stretching of forms. It exists in unexpected, yet wondrously apt variations on tone and theme.
You might understand it as, “Going boldly where no man has gone before.”
Easy, dude.
We disagree then. In Congo, Jurassic Park, Lost World, and Timeline, I have found Crichton’s work creative, imaginative, inventive, well researched, explorative, edgy, at times terrorizing, frightening, appealing and thought-provoking. Fine elements of any work of art, don’t you think?
Just because it may not break all the molds you require does not make it less “art,” IMHO.
I agree those are fine elements of any work of art – of any work, in fact. But their presence in a work does not mandate, or require, that the work be art.
I stand by my statement that Crichton is a newspaper novelist. In other words, one step above a hack. If books were buildings, his would be bungalows – in the end, they all look the same. And they do not sing.
(I can’t believe I’m helping to hijack my own thread. My mother always said I was too easily led.)
Hmmm… I’m still having trouble seeing the influence of art on science.
Well, architects and engineers are expected to make sure that the buildings, bridges, cars, etc. that they design are aesthetically pleasing to the eye, but that is not their primary goal. A stable but ugly bridge is far more valuable than a fragile but beatiful one. I don’t think any building has been designed with a “melting clocks” theme…
While you are correct in a literal sense, architects and engineers are most certainly concerned with aesthetics, often as the primary goal.
Consider that the architect, an/or the firm for which s/he works, is putting his/her name on a piece that will promote him/her as a world-class designer, and promote the firm as well. Getting the building to “stand-up” is a mechanical excercise, but from there on s/he is an artist. So, what if the architect (and the client, and/or the public) wants a certain “design” for a building? Obviously, the design takes precedence, and it is up to the archtect and engineers to make it work.
An ugly building that stands up very well will not attract buyers and leasers, and has little value.
Sorry for the double post…
Consider also the ancient European churches - they were SO concerned with aesthetics that the walls were too thin to hold up the roofs. They had to invent flying buttresses to compensate for the support of the roofline.
Michelangelo invented a system of pendentives - triangular things - that allow a dome to be mounted onto a square building. Having a dome for aesthetic purposes was more important than the fact that it was difficult to achieve, so new science had to be applied for the sake of art.
This sort of thing continues to this day… look at what Apple is doing with their computers! Style is the driving force, and the engineers are forcing the design of motherboards to conform to the iMac and Cube!
–Max the Immortal
You are still believing that art and science are mutually exclusive. They are not. Sure, a stable but ugly bridge is more valuable than a fragile but beautiful one. But don’t you think a stable and beautiful bridge tops them all?
Our logic is beautiful, and our art has to be logical. If some dummy throws a can of paint at the canvas, it is art only because that random pattern on the canvas has some scientific reason for looking like that.
Someday, if randomness is totally understood, then art will become science. But I don’t think that’s possible.
(See the randomness thread)
Try thinking about it as the influence of the artistic mind on the interpretation of data.
Envisioning three dimensional space as a two dimensional fabric with objects creating indentations in the fabric is a very artistic model for understanding the effects of gravity.
The chemical composition of DNA is relatively trivial to ascertain, but the concept of these atoms lining up in such a way that they form a pair of helical strands held together by hydrogen bonds between base pairs requires an artistic leap that isn’t immediately apparent from a chemical analysis or even X-ray crystallography.
The Polymerase Chain Reaction is an amazingly creative technique for replicating DNA using enzymes that are active at different temperatures. By cycling the ambient temperature of a PCR reaction, you can control the replication of DNA. It’s not really a procedure one can come up with based on simply extrapolating previous experiments. It was a very creative solution to a simple problem.
It’s not that a scientist will be more likely to win a Nobel Prize if he goes to MoMA every week, but having an artistic perspective can help a scientist come up with revolutionary ways of approaching a previously unanswered question.