Lecture on the relationship between Art and Science

Last week I had the great pleasure of of speaking to the National Cancer Institute about the relationship between art and science.

Below I’ve posted the visual part of the presentation, but sadly there is not audio or video recording to go along.

Here is a brief summary of my 30-minute presentation to help you make sense of the visuals.

I began by emphasizing that I am in no way an academic expert on the relationship between art and science.  I was, however, a rare example of someone formally trained in science, but working as an artist.  Then, before I got into the big picture of Art and Science, I spent some time discussing the similarity between working as an artists and working as a scientist. Both involve long hours of hard work for little pay or recognition, during which nothing ever seems like it’s working or going well or coming out the way you’d hoped; and this work is rarely punctuated by brief moments when the stars align, the universe unfolds and amazingly beautiful things happen. Finally, I emphasized the important role of community and criticism to both artists and scientists.

From there I touched upon some of the big picture relationships between art and science. They are the two great modes of human thought, both pushing the boundaries of what we know and how we know it; what we can perceive and how we perceive it. I quickly went over the role of aesthetics and experimentation in both. I pointed out that because art and science share so many things in common, it’s often suggested that the line between them is blurry. While I understand this suggestion is often made in an attempt to elevate both, I believe it actually diminishes both. We know there is a difference between art and science, but what is, and what can it tell us about their relationship and importance, we are still exploring.

Ironically, art and science differ most noticeably in the last great trait they have in common: communication. While both art and science are principally about communication, they differ in the direction in which they are communicating. Science begins with the physical, observable, concrete occurrences in the world and scientists generate abstractions that communicate their understanding of these phenomena. I used Newton’s law of gravitation as an example. He began (the story goes) by observing an apple falling from a tree. From this (and a lot of other observations and work) he generated his formulation of gravity, an abstraction that has nothing to do with apples or trees. It is pure science, a beautiful and clear abstraction, that is its power.

Art, I suggested, ran this reaction in the opposite direction. Artists begin with their abstract internal understanding, beliefs or feelings, something that exists within them. Artists then work to generate specific, concrete, physical manifestations of these abstractions: paintings, songs, dances, sculptures, etc.  As an example of this, I presented The Neuron Chamber as an attempt to take an abstract understanding of both how neurons work, and my experiences studying them, and create a sculpture that communicates that.

I discussed how this led me to think more explicitly about the role of education in my work, and how I viewed teaching as very close to generating artwork. I pointed out that when you teach, you are forced to take all the things you know about a topic, all the abstractions you understand, and communicate them using the solid and specific, usually speaking. I reminded them that when you teach something you often develop deep insights into what you are teaching. I suggested this was because you are forced to make the abstract concrete, you are in a sense working as an artist. I spoke about my work at the Exploratorium developing hands-on and interactive ways to teach science.

Finally, I encouraged them all to go and try this with their own work. To generate specific, aesthetic, physical representations of what they were studying scientifically. When forced to find a set of mappings between what you know and what you are creating, you develop a new understanding. I told them that just as they can get the benefits of exercise without thinking of themselves as athletes, or competing in the Olympics, they do not need to think of themselves as artists to get the benefits of creating art.