When science meets art (Part 1)
Some might think that art and science are extraneous to one another in so many ways that it is almost implausible to gather both of them in a single sentence. But is that truly the case? How intertwined can science and art be and if they are, to which lengths does this bond go?
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science,” -Albert Einstein.
It is very common to categorize art as a product of expression either to make sense of our reality or to create a manifestation of the consciousness of the artist itself, whereas science falls into the category of seeking universal, irrefutable facts. This frame of mind discernably implies that art is often introspective (characterized by examination of one’s own thoughts and feelings) while science is extrospective (characterized by examination of what is outside one’s self).
In my opinion, if we are to give serious thought about the ideological affinity between art and science, we might come in terms of mere scrutiny that they are deeply intertwined. Science and art are the very nature of human attempts to grasp and illustrate the world that surrounds us. Although the pursued methodologies, and the traditions at the rear of them may vary, in several cases, their basic motives and goals and purposes are aligned.
So, which of these theses is more veracious? Can truth and beauty intertwine? Is it possible for a work of science to be a work of art, and vice-versa? Above all, if there is to be a connection between the two, what is the nature of it and how do we perceive it?
That’s exactly what we will handle in the next blogpost of this series..
