3 Answers

  1. An artist creates something based on sensory perception. The scientist is guided by pragmatic tasks, he justifies his actions. His research is based on a clear axiom, which the scientist elaborates experimentally.

    But if you look deeper, the artist's sense bases ” lend themselves to certain patterns, which can also be identified on the basis of examples. Composition and proportion are calculated using mathematics and logic. That is, the main difference is that the scientist must justify the course of his actions, and the artist-only the result.

  2. Nothing. Both the artist and the scientist are engaged in implementing ideas – just one was lucky, and the other was even more lucky with the ability to implement them in a certain way.�

    But the artist-from the word “bad”, and the scientist-no. Perhaps this is due to the fact that everyone can offend an artist, but not a scientist. Try to offend the scientist – he will immediately hit you in the eye!

  3. Answering this question is as difficult as saying, for example, what is the difference between a dolphin and a gazelle. But the answer is not without meaning: from a biological point of view, a dolphin is a closer relative of a gazelle than, say, a horse that looks much more like it. Only in order to make this similarity clear, you need to get very deep into the essence of the issue, applying the theory of evolution and learning how to compare seemingly indirect, but in fact key features. So it would take a book, perhaps more than one, to fully answer, and here we can only give some sketches.

    First of all, we must take into account the medium on which creation becomes available to others – a kind of “habitat”. For an artist, this is a canvas, a photo, or an image file… some even embroider photographically accurate portraits with threads. For a scientist, first of all a theorist, a medium is not some tricky device or substance, as it is drawn in cartoons. The main principle of science is reproducibility of conducted experiments and obtained results. Thus, the fruit of a scientist's activity is primarily an article in a scientific journal or in the public domain. Moreover, the higher the degree of science (read: mathematics), the less it is possible to give any visible illustrations. And if the picture, at least externally, can be perceived by more or less everyone, then for understanding the article, the qualification of a superficial acquaintance is much higher.�

    For this reason, unlike an artist, a modern scientist cannot provide his work with any hidden meanings, symbols, which ultimately make up a work of art. Even if it is difficult for specialists to understand work on a similar topic, then this work should be presented as clearly and clearly as possible, in generally accepted terms.

    But that's where the fun begins – the similarities begin. Let the picture act primarily on the senses, it, like the article, must be understood. Not necessarily everyone, even if only the target audience, even if this audience consists of one and a half friends in the underground – but understood. That is, the” language ” of the picture should ultimately be available, as well as the terminology of the scientific article.�

    To produce the right effect, the picture must have a composition – but this is also true for articles. How to arrange the material in the article, what to pay attention to, what calculations and conclusions to omit, because they are clear to the audience, and what material to include, because it is usually unknown to the audience – you have to deal with this all the time. Elegance – this word is far from alien to science, and many distinguished scientists note that simplicity, beauty and truth usually go hand in hand.

    The latter comparison refers rather to the most abstract part of science, i.e., to theology and mathematics. The fact is that the less science is tied to the real world – where physics goes beyond the boundaries of black holes and under the Planck radius, and even earlier for mathematics-the more freedom for creativity arises. Creativity consists in choosing the axioms and revenues used to develop the theory. Nevertheless, it should be consistent with observations and previous results. And here I can't help but want to draw an analogy not just with artstov, but with Dutch painting.

    What is the peculiarity of Rembrandt's painting, how is he unique in comparison with his contemporaries? The fact is that Dutch painting of that time tended to hyperrealism – working with a brush in one hair, the artist reproduced every lint on the carpet, all the reflections and refractions of a complex gold decoration in an even more complex glass vessel… And here comes Rembrandt, and he writes the eye of a person with three strokes.�Depicts hair by scratching the dark layer with the back of the brush and covering up the previously applied light layer. Draws clothes, putting so much paint that it turns out a relief. Imagine the arguments he had with other artists about the validity of his technique.

    And I remember an argument I once had with my friend and colleague, a fellow Rembrandt. The argument was that, in the generalized case we were working on at the time, принимать should be taken as глад so-called smooth functions. Bram – that's the name of a colleague-believed that this should be determined by already existing objects, for which another method has already been invented, and I – that this definition can generally be sucked out of your finger, and the theory should be adjusted to the choice already made. We almost got into a fight. But, although our argument was about a very abstract field of science, our arguments were not scientific in nature – they were purely aesthetic. In the end, we just ended up with different styles of work. Just like every artist wants to develop their own style.

    This style-the style of the artist-can be anything: from hyperrealism and imitation of the classics – to Dadaism and the Malevich square. But there are also different styles in mathematics – from metamathematics, proof theory-and up to quite applied disciplines that are directly related to the speed and accuracy of calculations of physical processes in engineering problems. Everyone chooses their own approaches and tools, sometimes there are if not irreconcilable contradictions, then at least serious misunderstandings between people who develop different directions-just like in different styles of art.�

    And at this deeper level, the difference between an artist and a scientist is erased, just as the difference between a dolphin, a gazelle, and an infusoria is erased – after all, they are all ultimately eukaryotes.

Leave a Reply