When did the scientists become so separated from the artists?
I mentioned in my last post that I am an artist. Some folk wondered at this, since I have also claimed to follow a scientific persuasion.
Yes, I can be both. I am a philosopher, an explorer, a lover of good food, an occasional poet, and many other things beside. I am a scientist in that I always have to know what's under the couch, and an artist through my talents in getting there. Science and art can't be distinguished as separate entities. Without the creativity of art, science would stagnate and stall, while art without knowledge can never have a purpose, be it psychological, social, physical, or otherwise.
I am a thinker. I warm my brain every morning on my heat rock, and spend my days attempting to understand what I observe. Tell me: is that the life of a scientist or an artist?
I'll bet all of you are both too. You're all interested in the way the world works in some respect or other, as well as in expressing what you see and think. I challenge you to definitively explain if you believe you are an artist without science or a scientist without art.
Give me a brush, and I will paint the light, the life, and the glory that is made real by science. I will paint it well, as I love it for the beauty in the way it works. Explain to me the life of a butterfly, or the wonder of the stars, and I will listen with rapturous awe for the unimaginable creativity sustaining the universe. I will ponder for hours the perfection and struggles of the world.
I embrace the science of art and the art of science. All at once. And the world is amazing.
Ever-curiously,
Mikey
No comments:
Post a Comment