For their upcoming feature on artists who have a background in science, a medical humanities journal recently asked the following question: “What is the purpose of your art? What do you hope to achieve through your work?” Here is my current take:
If the purpose of science is to seek answers to what we don’t know yet, perhaps the purpose of art is to question what we think we already know. With this in mind, I can see how the two fields can be perceived as contrasting, but to me they really are two sides of the same coin. I never saw art as a form of expression, nor a quest for beauty. I think that these cliches have been falsely ascribed to artists. Art may appear to have these purposes when seen from the other end: from the standpoint of the viewer, historian, or critic (perhaps because the end result of the art process may appear expressive or beautiful) but I don’t believe that most artists enter the field with egotistic or hedonistic motives. There is always an exploration at hand. It often feels as though I am curiously searching for a new way of characterizing something. But that is probably putting it too simply.
An even more important thing to consider here is the value that we place on the two fields. I think it’s safe to say that science is commonly perceived as more valuable than art in its purpose. I’m basing this on the amount of funding, public attention, and common daily references to both fields. I think that this imbalance is detrimental to humankind. As much as we find it useful to seek structure and make sense of the world, it’s just as important to examine our paradigms and biases.
Difficult topic: What is art?
I myself am an engineer / materials scientist and came to art via analog photography. However, I have spent the last 7 years more or less learning about different techniques, by which I mean more the process part. I also copied masters first to learn. Art without craft is not possible -from my point of view. The representational photography as such does not appeal to me, rather the subjective photography and increasingly the use of different materials.
I do not see art as a questioning of the existing or established, because then I would always refer only to what already exists.
Why should art not be beautiful? Beautiful in its execution!
From my point of view, this brings us to the actual topic. For me, art is the symbiosis of haptics and brain. Working with all the senses and refining them on a concrete concept and object.
In the age of digital media and social networks, this has become a scarce commodity.
For me, art has something more personal, intimate. Those who need their 5 minutes of fame on Facebook never find their way to art.
But many people think that art is only art when it hangs on the wall in exhibitions. I’ve had many people ask me, “You have to do an exhibition!”. I then challenged them, “You have to leave my house. Now!” (Most of them don’t know what effort an exhibition means and what costs are involved).
If I have to live from it as an artist, that is of course another thing, but who can live from art? From my point of view, it is more of a philosophy of life if you are 100% committed to art. Luck and a patron can be helpful. Art was also for the most part always commissioned art (church, nobles, wealthy).
It is always an art first to create material opportunities to be artistically active on a larger scale, or you married rich, inherited, etc….
Well, I am an asset manager: I manage my wife’s working assets….
I buy the freedoms of art by doing laundry, ironing, cooking and cleaning.