I was having dinner with some good friends this evening, and the subject came up of the question of the “artist” mindset versus the “scientist” mindset. Questions from that discussion are still rattling around in my head.
I’ll just say, right at the outset, that I don’t believe there are two different subspecies of human that can be labeled “artist” or “scientist”. Rather, such identities are part of a dialectic that operates within every individual mind. When you are thinking like a scientist, you are concerned with mechanism: “How does this work? What are the operating principles here? What do I need to build to get from here to there?”
In contrast, when you are thinking like an artist, you are focusing on the deeper meaning itself, and the mechanism is merely a tool to get you there.
The myth that the “artist” and “scientist” are different people is quite prevalent in our society. So much so, that many people are surprised when the myth is questioned. There are many social structures that reinforce this myth. Children are told, from the time they are little, that they need to self-define with a narrow identity. Academic and professional societies are structured in a way that forces a “scientist” to act in a particular way, and punishes professional behavior that seems too “artistic”. Science is not supposed to ask “why”. Yes, an individual scientist can be socially responsible — this is actually encouraged. But this concern with outcomes is not considered part of the process of science itself.
Similarly, to succeed in the art world, one needs not to be seen focusing on the means by which things are done, but rather on the larger purposes and meaning. Starting in the second half of the twentieth century, Clement Greenberg and other influential voices in the art world called upon a renunciation of “mere technique”, in favor of a concept of art that rises above technical means, and focuses rather on ideas expressed, independent of the means used to express those ideas.
And so art and science have formed themselves into two opposing ghettos, each trapped by its own self-imposed limitations.
In my view, “art” and “science” are really two sides of the same coin. Within any individual, the practice of each is impoverished without the practice of the other. Great artists tend to be inventors, and great scientists tend to be driven by a higher purpose that is somewhere on the spectrum from romantic to spiritual.
Frank Capra was constantly inventing new techniques on the set to express his films, which was not surprising, since he had a Ph.D. in Engineering. He self-defined primarily as an artist — which means he was more concerned with getting the shot, and capturing an emotion on film, than he was with how he got it done. Nonetheless, Capra was perfectly comfortable tapping into his scientist self to refine and improve upon the techniques of cinema. The artist within him did not squelch the scientist within him, and this was part of the reason for the great effectiveness of his films.
Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, among other great physicists, were driven by a larger sense of purpose, of beauty, of intrinsic meaning in the universe around them. When they were identifying and communicating those ideals to others, they are being artists. When they are implementing those ideals by developing mathematical bridges to greater understanding of the workings of the Universe, they were being scientists.
Leonardo da Vinci was of course artist and scientist both, in a way that was so completely integrated that it is impossible to draw a line between those complementary aspects of his creative genius.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had the courage to teach our children to follow in his footsteps?
Yes, since I’m working with European men now, German, Italian, Swiss and French, I told them that they are: robust engineering of Mercedes and beauty of Lamborghini with Omega precision with French elegance, it’s a car I (a fearless Japanese New Yorker) am trying to drive 🙂 But when it comes to a Radio performance I need to give in two weeks, I can’t care less I’m on a “Toyota” that gets me there no matter what. I need my pieces to work that day with or without the “Lamborghini” program they are building for me.
I’m sorry this isn’t nearly as elegant as your post, but it’s a reality 🙂
For kids I think we can teach them the work ethic, which I think is the same for science and art. You have to be at it until you have done your absolute best… or is it?
I completely agree. I think the “art” / “science” issue, at its core, is about goals. All of those self-definitional cultural conflicts stem from this. It’s not about whether one applies the work ethic and does ones best, since that work ethic is in place for all involved.
For you the performance is the goal, and for them the Lamborghini is the goal. Tension can arise when those goals conflict. Those real conflicts can be ironed out, if one sees them clearly — people should be able to switch roles effortlessly between tool maker and tool user when needed, with each role informing the other. Unfortunately, all of the cultural baggage I was describing gets in the way.
Yes… the problem about helping to build their Lamborghini is that it takes the time and energy away from me to drive to get there. So ultimately it’s the time issue, the deadline. Duke Ellington said, “Don’t give me time, give me deadlines!” and he got so much done 🙂
So while waiting for my “pit stop crew” to tune up their Lamborghini, I’m building my “Toyota” just in case so I can get there. Two weeks before the concert now, so I’m pretty sure I will drive my Toyota. They need to understand I’m not willing to ‘test drive’ a beautiful Lamborghini that might crash on stage or air (I also have a presentation on the same day) which will actually affect the resources for the Lamborghini being made….
Maybe this is Euro-macho thing, and they can’t accept ‘failure’ in front of me…. I feel their testosterone kicking in! But really all I want is just to get there 🙂
ps. I’m at where even composers and performers are separated, and the ‘instrumentalists’ were given a very dry description called “interprète”, like a translator, or executor. Composers are the thinkers, concept-makers and “interpreters” are the executors. The result, in my opinion, is very, very DRY music that makes me sad listening to them. And God forbid, if engineers and scientist speak of art. They aren’t ‘qualified’ for that, and they aren’t allowed nor listened to. I’m blasting through this, coming from NYC and always having to do everything myself, it seems ridiculous. But maybe this strict division of labor helps control quality….at least in wine and bread.
@Ken You know I am an Euro-macho, so please can you explain to me what gpal means? 😉
And as long as I worked in interdisciplinary teams things only worked out well, when we leant about each others art and showed some real interest for the other part of the world.
We just need to get rid of the bunch of preconception we are having.
That was a typo, now fixed. Thanks for catching that!
We are all artists, and we are all scientists. I think the important thing to remember is that there are not two different kinds of people, although people certainly do develop their various inner skills to varying degrees in the things they do both personally and professionally.
Sorry Ken, I won’t rant on your blog again 🙂 It’s all good here in Paris, especially those criminally good Ladurée Macaroons….
Oh, I like when you rant on my blog. 🙂 I’m glad you are enjoying Paris!