The False Dichotomy Between Art and Science

I recently had a bit of a disagreement with a new online friend of mine who posted this post on his blog about why he decided to choose a career in physics over his other passions of sports, music, art and politics. When I was reading his article, I understood his main focus was to make the point that science is a noble career path and also a stable one. Often it is more difficult to be a big success at something like music or sports, but this also depends on ones desires and definition of success. Nevertheless, I had no problem with someone deciding to choose one career path over another. The fault in my friends argument I found was his position that science is intrinsically more valuable than all of these other fields, including the arts.

The above statement is obviously false.

I posted a big long comment on his blog to which he graciously responded and accepted my position, clarifying that he simply meant to argue why he chose a particular career path. But I pointed out that in the process he created a false dichotomy between art and science and failed to see how they feed into one another, particularly in the area of technology and art.

Before I go on, I want to share with you my response to his post as he has given me permission to repost my comment here. I have portions of his post in italics.

________

I have to say that, as a writer and co-editor of an art and literary magazine, I have to STRONGLY disagree with your logic regarding the intrinsic value of the arts as a whole. So I’d like to correct you if you don’t mind:

The importance of arts is the inspiration and effects that the artist has on its audience. The right artist, with the right exposure, has the chance to change the world and the way people see it. However, this is very infrequently the case.

I agree with your first sentence in part: you seem to miss the whole point of self-expression and the value that creating art has for the artist themselves. After that first sentence I completely disagree. You are saying that unless you are Picasso or The Beatles then why bother trying? You aren’t really affecting any kind of real change right? That’s completely and totally false. The arts do have ways of reaching people – I run a small art and literary magazine and we have been very successful in bringing together a small community of people. We are building connections with other artists for collaborative projects. We are providing people with an outlet for their self-expression. We are a showcase for beautiful poetry, photography, fiction – the list goes on! We are running community workshops for writing and helping people get more involved with other writers. Ok, now that I’m done talking about how awesome my magazine is, I can take a break to say that we probably won’t change the world. But this experience alone has changed my life forever. My life is richer and has more meaning knowing that I’m helping people succeed as writers and artists. You simply cannot try to measure inspiration in the number of people you inspire. Even if you write a beautiful poem and it only inspires yourself – well, I feel there is deep, meaningful value there. You simply can’t measure emotional experience, personal growth or inspiration. Just because something isn’t quantifiable doesn’t negate its importance.

The more common use of music and art is simply entertainment, which I do believe is important. However, I feel that it is important to distinguish that I am not saying that any of these pursuits like athletics, arts, or politics are not on some level important, but just that I regard them with less overall greater importance than I do science.

Here you are saying that if you aren’t affecting great change, then the only other purpose art must serve is entertainment. This is kind of ridiculous. Even on a small scale, the arts have so many purposes: community building, education, cultural preservation and expression, affect political change, therapeutic purposes, add value to a community, self expression! One beautiful piece of art can change someone’s emotional state. I’m not just talking about Mozart’s symphonies here. I have a friend who writes beautiful songs and barely sings them to anyone – but I’ve been changed by her music. To say the only value the arts have is for entertainment you are devaluing the better part of human history. Human beings create. Human beings imagine. This is one of the things that sets us apartment from all other species.

Arts, to me, are like a drug…

I will refrain from being insulted here because I think you are a nice guy and don’t mean any harm. For you to argue that just because all your experiences with the arts made you irresponsible and flaky and then to deduce that this must be the case for all people with all art forms – that is not only insulting, but its unfounded. You are saying that your personal experiences must define everyone else’s – and that’s just bad logic there. I will give you this: art can be used as a form of escapism. But arts also inspire people in the darkest moments of their lives. They are a call to action – personal and political action. The arts have inspired revolutions! Great literature has made people so upset they wish to burn the very words of the author. The arts can change they way people think, the way people live their lives, their ethics and values.

Arts make you feel better for a little while but science actually makes us better, more often than not, forever.

This statement is wrong in two ways. One, you are making it sound like all scientists are working on a cure for cancer. There are plenty of scientists out there who aren’t extending our life span. There is also plenty of silly science out there! Just take a look at the Ignoble Prize winners for this year. Science can simply make our lives enjoyable in the same way some art can make our lives enjoyable. I have see no problem with this – but don’t argue that all sciences endeavors are solving the AIDS crisis when we all know its not the case. Also, you seem to say that any value that art provides is fleeting emotional distraction at best. You have sold the arts short here. Why do we have entire museums dedicated to the preservation of great works of art? Should we not waste our time investing in the preservation of our libraries full of great works of literature? These things have lasted through the ages just like science. The arts and sciences do strive toward different goals in some areas, but neither is more or less valuable than the other. So sure, science can extend our lifespan so humans will someday live for 500 years, but without the arts, with out language, without music, without self-expression – we will surely be bored and lacking. Sure science can keep us a live but the arts make life worth living.

________

This whole dialogue has inspired in me a desire to blast open this false dichotomy between art and science. I will be writing a series of posts under the theme "The Intersection of Art and Science" in an attempt to correct the notion that these two disciplines are unrelated. Rarely anything in life is that cut and dry and while our society loves to categorize us, loves to label us as either "creative" or "scientific" - why can't someone be both? Certainly scientists have to be, at times, creative and innovative and artist need to be methodical and disciplined sometimes as well.

If you have any ideas or examples of such an intersection, feel free to contact me and let me know.