Editor: Douglas Drenkow

V A L U E S   &   I S S U E S


Legal Notices

Links of Interest

COMMUNICATION: Media, Arts, & Society | August 7, 2003



A Posting to New York Arts Magazine On-Line Forum,

In Response to SCI-ART: Science and Art

-- So Different, So Similar?, by M-1000

As a university educated scientist and an autodidactic artist -- not to mention an admirer of Leonardo -- I am particularly moved by this discussion.

To me, pure science is the search for truth in the universe, which exists independent of the observer, the scientist.

Art, however, is not only the search for truth in the universe but also the communication of its meaning, which is utterly dependent upon the observer, the artist, and, typically, an audience.

Both science and art may be either pure or applied -- applied science being technology; applied art being technical drawing, commercial art, etc.

But at their most basic, science and art both stem from the truth -- worshipped, in one form or another, by virtually all major religions as the Supreme Being (or source of existence itself) and, being everywhere around us at all times, typically taken for granted (like the force of gravity or the passage of time)...that is, taken for granted by those who are not theologians, scientists, or artists.

If you believe as I believe that the soul of Homo sapiens exists within the mind of Homo sapiens (and to argue otherwise raises such romantic notions as the heart being the seat of the soul or the controversies surrounding abortions within the first two trimesters, before the neurological formation of consciousness), then science and art are as inseparable as the left and right halves of our brains...each an entity unto itself, but each more significant in light of the other.

Art and science...a marriage made in Heaven.

Return to Archive of COMMUNICATION: Media, Arts, & Society


Home | Editor | Values & Issues | Feedback | Legal | Links