IV. Of Mad Scientists And Romantic Artists
And the difference between them is …..
Scientists are weird people, but fortunately they are easy to spot. All you have to do is watch out for an “aging male with crooked teeth and messy hair, wearing a lab coat and goggles, and preferably holding an effervescent test tube.” Arguably this is from Wikipedia’s “mad scientist” entry; but how much difference does that distinction make? Really.
They are socially awkward too. They consider it a great improvement in their social skills if they can bring themselves to stare at the other person’s shoes while having a conversation, rather than at their own. These are all true – at least in the mind of some non-scientists. Bear this in mind as I - as a scientist - share my thoughts on artists and what they do.
Fortunately for artists though, I have a soft spot for them. Somehow I have convinced myself that I always had a latent attraction for an artistic career. It’s only that by the time I had recognized my affinity, I had already dug myself so deep into a science career that there was no escape. But to be fair, the opposite could be true too. Meaning, had I decided for an arts career then I could have one day, like now, wished that I had taken the other path. How I envy those who always knew what they wanted to be when they grow up!
Now back to artists. They are the good-looking, romantic and open-minded types. And how creative they are! They imagine beautiful things that have never existed before; and make them into reality. But don’t scientists do that too? Einstein and Max Planck developed Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, respectively – things that only a creative mind could conceive. If you don’t believe me then listen to Max Plank: “new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination.” Artistically creative imagination – there you have it! And how about the German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé? He came up with benzene’s ring structure after dreaming of Ouroboros – the snake consuming its own tail. How creative!
And beauty? Are Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics beautiful? Experts say they are the paragon of beauty - in the way they explain how nature works. Before you protest, just let me tell you how often I have looked at pieces of art (usually of the abstract and modern sort) struggling to find even the “b” in their beauty. Beauty, after all is in the eye of the beholder.
But surely there must be big differences between what scientists and artists do? The answer to the question lies in the answer. No, this is not a typo. Let me explain. A fundamental difference between what scientists and artists do lies in the answer they seek. Scientists strive to find the simplest, and ideally one, answer that explains as many phenomena as possible. In other words the goal of a scientific endeavor is to get to the one right answer. Artists in contrast, not only strive to but actually thrive from getting answers that are as different as possible from their cohorts. For example, when confronted with a crimson red sky at sunset, scientists will try to find the one explanation that will explain all such displays. But a group of artists, when confronted with the same sunset will produce renditions that are as individual as possible.
Therefore I have come to the conclusion that for science, the pinnacle of success is the single answer. But for arts, it’s the death knell. Is it just a coincidence that we refer to science in the singular but arts in plural?
(Stereotyping of scientists is not a surprise considering that only 20% of American adults count a scientist among their close friends. A very entertaining and effective cure could be the autobiographical book “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)
