Scientists and Artists: Motivations, Aspirations, Approaches and Accomplishments

Leonardo, Vol. 7, pp. 255-259. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Britain SCIENTISTS AND ARTISTS : MOTIVATIONS, ASPIRATIONS, APPROACHES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS* Michael J. Moravcsik** I. INTRODUCTION Since modern sciencebegan in the 17thcentury and particularly since the arrival of ‘Big Science’ about 40 years ago, comparisons of science and art have received more and more attention. There is a broad spectrum of conflicting views on this subject. At one extreme is the contention that science and art are diametrically opposite, that they are separated by the gulfs between the objective and the subjective, the intellectual and the emotional, the materialistic and the idealistic. On the other hand, there are those who claim that the apparent differences between scientists and artists are simply due to the somewhat different directions in which their creativity happens to function. Readers will find discussions of these views by numerous authors in past issues of Leonardo. My personal contributions to theseviewsare those of a professional scientist with a major interest and amateur involvement in the arts. My purpose is not to present a synthesis of previous views but instead to account for some of the elements I have noted in the motivations, aspirations, methods and accomplishments of scientists and artists. I shall try to point to both similarities and differences in these elements on the basis of certain assumptions I have made, particularly as regards the arts. I hope that my analysis will contribute to better understanding and communication between scientists and artists. With this aim in mind, I believe it is advisable to approach the analysis in terms of my interpretation of what artists and scientists think they are and do, rather than what some ‘objective’ study would conclude they are and do. Also, in order to * Based on a lecture given at the Festival of Arts at the ** Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, University of Oregon on 16 January 1973. Eugene, OR 97403, U.S.A. (Received 9 July 1973.) Ipinpoint the various elements with greater clarity, I must make a simplification of a number of complex matters. In particular, situations with many shades of different possibilities will sometimes be replaced by the much cruder but simpler image of two opposing arguments. 11. MOTIVATIONS There are several very important motivations that scientists and artists share. Perhaps the uppermost of these is the one that they share with those working in other fields, namely, creativity. Fortunately for mankind, a considerable number of individuals are born with an urge to make something of their talents and capabilities, to create something new. It is common these days in America to belittle people with a strong creative urge by accusing them of being ‘accomplishment oriented’. According to this view, a striving for the exercise of creativity is a neurotic trend due to a tendency for selfglorification and those who yield to this drive do so at the cost of their ‘human’ qualities. I very much disagree with this, since I believe that the basic assumption of the view is false, namely, I do not find that the fundamental motivation for accomplishment orientation is a selfish one. I believe that creativity is basically neither selfish nor altruistic but is rather an unpremeditated activity of most human beings that, incidentally, has been of immense benefit to humanity. A second motivation shared by scientists and artists is somewhat related to the first one and is of an aesthetic nature. Beauty is enjoyed by many people, though the definition of what is beautiful might vary greatly from person to person. To a scientist, the laws of nature, that is, the regularities in the working of the universe, are extremely beautiful, just as artists find beauty in certain 255 256 Michael J. Morawsik combinations of forms, colors, sounds and words. It is perhaps much less known to the layman that scientists often use criteria of beauty (for example, simplicity) in their formulation of scientific hypotheses . Thus not only do scientists get satisfaction out of the beauty of the regularities of nature but their feelings of beauty play a role in their practice of science. A third common motivation is the desire to make a positive contribution to the welfare of humanity. The artistic...