The Fusion of Science and Poetry
For time immemorial, some scientists and mathematicians have expressed incredulity about arts of any kind. Ironic that those who create art in numbers are themselves so disposed against it. Over the years, I have come across people with significant skill in the realm of numbers and equations, but with a remarkable and insurmountable skepticism for the weavers of words and poetry. As for me, I was a poet first and a pursuer of scientific aims second.
You should understand that I hold such pursuers of “pure science” in the same regard (or disregard, if you will). Indeed, my commentary is limited to those who suit the aforementioned criterion intently; those who have utter disregard and cynicism for anything but their fields. Because as it turns out, science and poetry (which itself is an art) share a deeper connection than one might expect.
Science and philosophy have stood hand in hand since Aristotle’s time and perhaps even since before. Poetry is often philosophy in a more succinct and digestible form, while the art of scientific research is a skill nature has gifted a select few of us with.
My tryst with poetry began somewhere around 2011, with a poem that I neither remember, nor care enough for to try and remember. Even though I was unaware of the skillset I would later develop, my first instinct upon being provided with a writing task was to write in verse, for no comprehensible reason other than the sheer heck of it. Regardless of the “why”, that’s where the seed sprouted and I haven’t stopped since.
On the other hand, I had no idea as to the direction my studies would take once I had graduated senior secondary school. Indeed, opting for an undergraduate course in physics was a choice made at the last minute with the promise that poetry and literature would not take a backfoot no matter where I ended up. Thus, while considering myself uniquely qualified for arguing in favor of the fusion of science and poetry may be an overstatement, selling myself short would not be advisable either. And I find myself deeply mesmerized by Paul Strand’s¹ vision that
The true artist, like the true scientist, is a researcher using materials and techniques to dig into the truth and meaning of the world in which he himself lives, and what he creates, or better perhaps, what he brings back are the objective results of his explorations.
Why?
One question I am certain might arise at this stage is “why?”. What is the need for even wondering if such a connection between so seemingly distant fields exists? Why try to infuse poetry into science or vice versa when the two appear content on their own?
At the risk of sounding aimless, I must confess that a solid reason for this little monologue appears elusive. You might consider it a choice of desire. But truth be told, I sincerely believe in the ideas I aim to put forward here and I think those who believe otherwise might be inclined differently if I appeal here. These ideas, which led to this monograph, stem from an assignment I recently had to submit wherein, I wrote:
This fusion of concepts that lie on, in a way, opposite ends of a spectrum, appears strikingly interesting since as a poet myself, I find myself intrigued by the possibilities that open up once we set foot outside the bounds of pure literature.
So, bear with me for the sake of possibilities, if nothing else, and you just might come out a changed individual on the other end.
Common Grounds
Both science and the arts depend on the ability to define a problem, to note detail, to enquire, and to extract the essence of the problem at hand².
Science and art are fundamentally connected to nothing but the exploration of the unknown. Indeed, curiosity has been the driving cause behind several major inventions and discoveries. And if you truly think about it, aren’t science and art both driven by a desire to explore whatever is “out there” or “in here”. Astrophysicists explore everything to do with the stars, nuclear scientists try to understand what makes the world of nuclei turn, and there are a million fields that lie between these extremes. Artists do something same and then some more.
If you have ever looked at an image of a galaxy, a nebula, an atom, a molecule, or anything not visible to the naked eye, you are looking not at what it looks like but what it would look like if the human eye could discern the frequencies that these objects emit. There is so much in this world that we cannot see and artists breathe visual vitality into this invisible world by developing conceptual appearances.
Scientists Were Artists, as were Artists, Scientists
Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line
John Keats’ criticism of the natural sciences, which used to be known as natural philosophy in the days before mid-19th century, truly captures a small portion of the essence of this article. And for the historically-inclined readers, the knowledge that Keats trained as a medical doctor will not come as a shock. And indeed, this peculiar duality of skills is not limited to just Keats. In A Sonnet to Science, Professor Illingworth⁴ of Edinburgh Napier University writes about six ground-breaking scientists who were also accomplished poets. In fact, he even goes on to discuss the impact their poetry had on their scientific pursuits and vice versa.
If I were to present just a single example of how poetic pursuits complement the realm of scientific research or engineering, I would pick the astonishing achievements of Ada Lovelace, who in her rebellious poetic inclinations, was able to theorise that Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine could even compose music and lyrics if programmed correctly. If that sounds like jargon to you, remember that AI today has progressed far enough for the simplest of cell phones to be able to perform composition far better than a large fraction of trained individuals.
It’s All the Same
For all the opposition, exclusion, and suspicion that the juxtaposition of these two fields give rise to, much scientific analysis of poetry has been done in the name of scholarly research. At the same time, the more scientific progress we make, the more we have to marvel at in the universe.
Poetry and science both seek to peer through to the underlying reality of things, pushing at the borders of imagination.
Thus, while some scientists with their little grey cells particularly starved of the right attention would consider a pursuit of the finer arts a wasteful venture, my views differ vastly. As do the views of a large majority of us. We are all artists as much as we are (or will be) scientists, and we take pride in our ability to harness the best of both worlds. Call this agenda a narcissistic one if you must; all of our scientific research and artistic pursuits have provided great evidence to the fact that stupidity cannot be helped. But you, if you also consider science and poetry to be pals: welcome to the community.
All my love,
Mohammad Yasir
Physicist. Author. Poet
Research Scholar, IIT-D
References
- Nabhan, Gary Paul. Cross-pollinations: The Marriage of Science and Poetry. United States, Milkweed Editions, 2004.
- Osbourn, Anne. “The poetry of science.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 4.1 (2006): 77–80.
- Johnson, M. (2020, December 1). What’s the Connection Between Art and Science? Psychology Today. Retrieved April 26, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-brain-and-value/202012/whats-the-connection-between-art-and-science
- Illingworth, Sam. “A sonnet to science: Scientists and their poetry.” A sonnet to science. Manchester University Press, 2021.
