Sunday, April 1, 2007

Is Art more Valuable than Science?

Thank you to Jason from Love To Lead for the question. Art is considered by most of us to be the ultimate expression of creativity while Science is considered the realm of logical thinkers delving into the mystery's of the universe. I would argue that scientific exploration is an art form.

A scientist exploring new ground must use creative thinking to to postulate a new theory and then quite often create new tools to explore and communicate their theory no different than what an artist does. When an astronomer gazes at the explosion of stars in the night sky do they feel any different than a photographer or painter looking at the same sky. I think they all feel the same awe. 

If art appeals to our feelings; is there a difference?

I think not and so I would answer no to this question. Creativity is creativity no matter what form it takes.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

5 conversations:

Digital Nomad said...

"Art without engineering is dreaming; engineering without art is calculating." --SKR

Peter-Not sure who SKR is, but this sure sounds good.

Digital Nomad said...

When I was in art school, I had two professors that were let go. One became a baker, and the other opened an ice cream shop.

They both said that this was now their art. Whatever you do, make it your art.

Peter Haslam said...

digital nomad SKR



From Behemoth to Microship: Two Platforms for Technomadic Adventure
by Steven K. Roberts - 2000
... “Art without engineering is dreaming. Engineering without art is calculating. .

Comedy + said...

Peter, As usual you have nailed it again. Of course they don't feel any different. Art is a Science...

Peter Haslam said...

Thanks comedy+ as we both know comedy is also an art. The art of surprise which you abundantly serve up in your blog.