Science in Art
In the last few years, there has been a digital revolution in the field of the art of science experiencing all sectors. A contemporary artist constantly questions the scientific ideas about how to transform the concepts of displaying art through a new medium. This is also a consequence of the new technology which has the ability to introduce virtual ideas by high-speed devices and transform the way we see the world in a few clicks. Jones et al. (2012) raised questions about how different advanced technologies can be used by artists to transform their work and about the choice of materials and displays and even the scale of work which can enhance the audience’s experiences.
According to Henning (1988) science is a kind of subject which try to understand the natural phenomena using scientific approach, such as observation, testing experiments, formulation of hypothesis, and draw results that confirms. Similar to art, plus art consider science as an important source of creativity; therefore, the artists have been eager to move into scientific and technological area of interest which is also known as twenty-first century art approach. A famous British novelist and physical chemist C P Snow, in 1959, He mainly described the relationship between visual arts and science; as art presents expressive and emphatic while science embodies the rational end of human experience (Kingston, 2015). When science meets art, the outcomes can be extraordinary and understanding of both arts and science can be broadened. Science can revolutionize the arts from the painting of fast drying chemical materials to the human organs. Moreover, science also provide some of the masteries of artistic practice such as transforming the painters into computer-based model by tracking eye and hand movement (Henning, 1988).
Kubota (2019) highlights the distinct nature of science and art; however, at the same time a scientist’s display the glimpse into different arts interests. Garfield (1989, p. 54) supported the ideas as stated that scientist and artists share common things: creative process and the synthetic thinking in both human endeavours. There are many scientists has been accomplished their work in art through visualizing scientific facts to the common people. In this regard, the most renowned scientist is Albert Einstein who presented his experiment in visual imaging thoughts. Creativity is another important aspect of the arts which helpful in addressing theories or design an experiment from scientific perspectives and equally important as compare to an artists who painting sculpture (Henning, 1988). Science and arts are correlated in many aspects such as drive to be creative and certain motivation to make out of their talent and capabilities (Kingston, 2015).
Mumford (2012) stated that science required creative thinking, such as how the hypothesis need to be presented and implemented the outcomes. This all need creative thinking, which often terms as innovation. The same phenomena required to be a genius artist to achieve philosophical speculation. Evidence shows that creativity alone fail to deliver (Garfield, 1989). For example, an artist needs to understand the scientific knowledge about the things around which is precise and rigorous in any science in order to turn their dreams into real work. Henning (1988) highlighted on the difference between science and arts such as in the science things developed and concluded. In the case of medicine which provides cure illness, on contrast, the arts pursue to the development of imaginary models. However, majority of the literature agreed that both science and arts are following the discipline and creativity. This also true in the sense that both art and science are relied on synthesis and observation of the nature and the society could hardly developed without either. Snow (1959) stated that the mixture of science and art can enriched the culture and bring new ideas that helpful for both domains.
Artist and scientist share many similarities and sensitivity to aesthetics in their approaches; despite their work method is quite different. Garfield (1989) mentioned that artist and scientist share other major characteristic as well such as feeling uneasiness with social interaction and prefer to remain in their studio or the lab. Further, artist and scientist share sense of curiosity and desire to see different ideas development. In natural science, the expansion of the new knowledge is essential component especially when developing new field. For example, an artist draw pictures which progressed from 2D shapes into 3D photography; as 3D bring many good impacts in arts as it is more realistic. This shows that in both areas of knowledge development, natural science and arts recognize the progresses in term of presenting new knowledge. Kingston (2015) mentioned this as the unsettled status of this new hybrid art to be recognized. Artists often searching for the new ways or methods to investigate into themes which arising from the research and making processes, tools and new ideas which matches of scientific researches (Garfield, 1989). This help not only improve their performance in their field, also add a critical dimension with totally new agendas.
There is also a link between artist and research in human biology as well because it has implication in different point of views such as understanding human being, stimulate interest in how brain work and nature of life (Henning, 1988). Evidence shows that artist has a major role in the research-based imagery from inside the human body; as the artist draw new forms on interactive art whereas with using science increase the ability to monitor bodily process. Artists also used scientific tools in order to create more details and provocative sculptures which provide different aspect of the visible body elements and anatomy (Kingston, 2015). Therefore, artists are considered more supportive with scientific advances in all sectors including human biology because this allow them to use the technologies and seek to reflect on their ability to assess more insight of the internal functions and investigate with artistic use of bio-signal. Henning (1988) noted that artists are helping scientific advances in more details such as visually explaining the human body basically introducing the radical ways of thinking from an artist about physical functions as further scientific research unfold.
Art and science are similar: they both thrive on deep seeing, on expanding perception and attention which can all be gained through simple experience. As an Artist, I am trying to investigate that creative correlation between art and science in the medical imaging in order to inspire artistic practices and explore new approaches of making art.
Reference
Henning, E.B. (1988). Creativity in Art and Science, 1860-1960. Publisher: Cleveland Museum of Art Bookstore.
Garfield, E. (1989). Art and Science. Part 1. The Art-Science Connection. Vol. 12, pp. 54-61.
Kingston, V. (2015). The relationship between science and art. Retrieved from:
https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/W9b0kRIAABdu8KBo (Accessed: 04 April 2020).
Kubota, T. (2019). Science meets art at Stanford. Retrieved from: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/01/30/science-meets-art/ (Accessed: 02 April 2020).
Mumford, S. (2012). Art versus Science? Retrieved from: http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/artsmatters/2012/03/06/art-versus-science/ (Accessed: 28 March 2020).
Roat-Bernstein, R S. (1985). Visual thinking: the art of imagining Reality. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc.Vol. 75, pp. 50-67.
Snow, C.P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
