Jesse Rosten

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the relationship between Art and Science. Below are a few over-simplified and rambling thoughts on the topic.

Art and Science
When I was a kid I was fascinated by bugs. Something about their alien-like bodies and bizarre behaviors captured my curiosity. I would wander around outside turning over rocks to see what new googly-eyed or slimy specimen I could discover. I collected them, anesthetized and skewered them with mounting pins. I kept my six-legged treasures in an oversized Sees Candy box lined with styrofoam. Yes, I was that creepy kid depicted in all the Far Side cartoons. I was sure that when I grew up, I wanted to be an entymologist, paleontologist, archeologist, or meteorologist (anything that ended in “gist” would have been fine with me). It wasn’t until I picked up a camera in highschool (in order to photograph bugs) that I started my love affair with visual arts. When choosing a major in university, I felt like I had to decide between two paths, Art or Science. I didn’t realize at the time that the two disciplines were so closely related.

Typically, Art and Science are thought of as polar opposites. On one side of the hall, the science geeks hang out and discuss computers, chemistry, mathematics, and chess club. Across the hall the art freaks lean against their lockers discussing band class, painting, indie films, and skinny jeans. What the kids don’t realize is, at the core, they’re really not that different. I think Art and Science are deeply entwined. I’ll explain…

It is impossible to create art without science. If you look back in history you’ll see that every artistic movement has followed some sort of scientific breakthrough in communication technology. There were no painters until someone invented paint. There were no poems before someone invented language. Even those primitive cave drawings would have been impossible without a cave-man writing stick and dinosaur ink. Art cannot exist without science because all art is made from, and with science. In the words of my favorite comedian, Demetri Martin, “Think about it.”

Now what about the flip side? Is there creativity within the discipline of Science? You bet your pocket protector there is! It takes a brilliant and clever mind to take seemingly disparate data and form a universal scientific theory. It’s not unlike Mozart (an artist, by the way) looking at a sheet of music and hearing the song in his head. Think about the great scientific discoveries in the modern era: the theory of relativity, the atom, space flight, vaccines, dinosaurs, the double helix, plate tectonics, Facebook – some single mind had to be so insightful, so in tune with the “notes” that they were able to compose these wonderful symphonies of scientific discovery. Every scientific breakthrough is ripe with creative (and thus artistic) expression. The act of discovery itself is a form of art.

Science and art have a very circular relationship. Art leads to Science, and Science begets Art. James Cameron is not a scientist, he’s a filmmaker. Yet Cameron had to personally develop the camera systems and workflow for his 3D epic ‘Avatar’. The tool for Cameron’s artistic expression did not yet exist; he had to invent it. He needed the science of filmmaking to catch up with his art of storytelling. Cameron’s art was the impetus for technological advancement, and, now that these 3D tools exist, no doubt they will be used to create more art. And the cycle continues.

Still with me? Good ’cause here’s where I think it gets juicy. I believe that artists and scientists operate with the same goals in mind: to describe the world around them. We are all human beings after all. We all have the desire to catalog, order, and describe our world. We just use different tools. Both artists and scientists have to be keenly perceptive and observant in order to describe and interpret reality. Now of course there are differences. A scientist would describe a sunset differently than a painter or photographer might. But their motivation is the same, they seek to understand. They are looking for truth. Science can describe why a sunset is red, and art can describe how that sunset makes us feel. I got into filmmaking because I wanted to understand more than just cameras, lenses, resolution, compression, and waveforms, I wanted to understand the emotional side, the story-telling side as well. I used to watch television and movies and wonder not only how a particular shot was done, but why it made me feel a certain way. The “how” is science, the “why” is art. And I use both “how” and “why” in every creative endeavor.

For me, the process of creating art is like running thousands of micro experiments in my mind. I’m constantly asking myself, “I wonder what would happen if I tried this?” The only way to find out is to run the experiment and analyze the results. Did the 85mm create empathy? Did the color red communicate urgency? Did that edit create excitement? If so, then can I create an “emotional theory” (for lack of a better term) surrounding that particular technique? The more micro experiments I perform, the more I learn about the craft, and the greater my understanding of art (specifically filmmaking) becomes. Even though my job title doesn’t contain any variation on the “gist” suffix, I still get to be a mini-scientist. I’ve just traded a bunsen burner and a thermocycler for a camera and computer.

There’s no question in my mind that Art and Science are bedfellows. I don’t think we can have one without the other. Ultimately, their goal is the same: the search for truth, be it empirical or emotional, objective or subjective, absolute or relative. I’m a lot older now, but still looking for bugs, both real and imaginary.

p.s. Congratulations on making it through such a long post. Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.