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.