This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is the difference between an artist and a scientist?
Supposing that there is a difference.
Topics:
artist scientific
TED Conversations
Sign In
To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).
Live Conversations
Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times:
Phil Buehler 500+
Ziska Childs 50+
Mark Williamson
They both begin with a creative process, followed by an efficient technique, even though artists are stereotypically creative, and scientists are stereotypically efficient. In fact, some artists suffer for lack of efficiency, while some scientists suffer for lack of creativity.
Are the stereotypes encouraging a vicious cycle, or do you think the fields actually facilitate the different processes, separately?
Balaji Prasad
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
loop johnny 30+
Jose Castillo 20+
Science galleries with wine and cheese parties, groups of people spending their Friday night wandering through a white well lit room full of test tubes, electron microscopes and Bunsen burners.
Art labs with paired up individuals in lab coats spending all day trying to replicate the exact drip of spray paint on brick, analyzing wax samples from lost-wax method bronze sculptures and the molecular properties of paper mache.
Kathleen Balson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5U1cpo_sk
Jimmy Toffali
Robert-David Steele-Vivas
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2000/04/consilience-the-unity-of-knowledge/
See Also:
Review: The World Is Open–How Web Technology Is Revolutionizing Education
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/08/review-the-world-is-open-how-web-technology-is-revolutionizing-education/
Review: Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution
http://www.phibetaiota.net/2009/12/review-holistic-darwinism-synergy-cybernetics-and-the-bioeconomics-of-evolution/
Peg Rousar-Thompson
Think of an artist as creatively-based and a scientist as knowledge-based. Say, for instance, each are handed a sea shell. For the scientist, his first thought may be the shell's Latin name. For the artist, that first thought may be emotional - and an urge to express that emotion.
That certainly doesn't mean that a scientist cannot write a poem about a seashell or that an artist doesn't comprehend the Fibonacci sequence. I'm just hypothesizing that this initial response is maybe the difference.
Supposing that there is one.
Vlad Fiscutean 500+
Comment deleted
Molly Hanlon
Samuel Liles
Where we can still argue from the observers point of view whether something is art the same might be said true of science. In art we look for the contradiction and eradication of conceptual restrictions and call them innovation. In art we advance concepts that are inherently political and sometimes incredibly biased by the events that spawned the creations. In a wildly swinging point, I’d have to say then sometimes we don’t. The artists are allowed this freedom to move from position to position freely.
The scientist is looking for truth that is forced through a fine mesh of process. Innovation can be found in the question, but process is found in the method. Sometimes falsely constrained the scientist must measure and force a result that is quantified. “What is beauty”, may be constrained into a falsifiable premise regardless of the categorical processes that are inherent in the question. Yes, there are chosen methods that bound the question and are accepted, but unanswered is the loss of context inherent in any such answer.
So, yes there is a difference in the freedom of action between the scientist and artist. Whether that is good or bad is an entirely different question.