I sometimes think about something a teacher said to me.

Post Reply New Topic

"You're either good at art or science, never both unless you're a mad scientist".

Yet I find myself looking towards science now and then when attempting to improve my art. Especially anatomy for drawing character designs. When writing I often have to look up small technical details to make sure that a scene actually works.

Also, my family seems to consist of individuals that excel in both art and science. I know a good portion of friends that do as well.

To a certain extent, I understand where that teacher was coming from. When dealing with realistic styles, sometimes it can be tempting to include too much detail (often in an unflattering way) which can ruin the piece. However, having a technical knowledge of certain things can come in handy when creating art.

If my friend didn't know so much about the inner workings of old planes, he wouldn't be able to draw them so accurately and picturesque.

Not too long ago I saw a film where two parents raised this kid who was destined to be a scientist, and pressured him to become an artist instead in order to see how much influence nature has over nurture. The problem with this premise is that it works under the assumption that the two are automatically incompatible. That a proper scientist is therefore incapable of being creative. However, this is simply not the case. Some scientists struggle with this, others don't.


Is it more common/ likely for scientific types to have difficulty with comprehending impractical thinking, unorthodox solutions, and art? Where did this stereotype/cliché come from? Am I surrounded by genius mad scientists?

^ I think there are more scientists who understand and appreciate art (in the broad sense) than there are artists who understand and appreciate science. But then I'm a mad scientist.

This is a famous essay on this very subject that you should look up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

You should have asked her what about Leonardo da Vinci. He was a great artist & scientist & he wouldn't be referred to as a mad scientist. He was just ahead of his time. He was mad in that Futureama ep but that's just a cartoon.

Well, I agree with your thoughts. Nowadays parents are more focusing on percentage and results instead to make your kid more creative and beautiful person. I understand that schools, college, courses are really important to your child can survive in this cruel world, but what if your kid is a beautiful person and always help and motivate others. It is also important. But there are many https://www.lylamorris.com/6-little-bit-of-techniques-to-stimulate-creativity-in-your-childs-life/ that you can read here.

What the teacher said is a bunch of hooey.

You should have asked that teacher if she had ever heard of a certain guy named "Leonardo Da Vinci".

I will admit that there are some forms of art (modern forms) that I do have a hard time perceiving as "art". Still do not understand how randomly splattering paint on a canvas can be called art. But, I can for the most part appreciate art for what it is. It can be an outlet to express creativity. For the record, there is art in the substructure of particles and light. So you could say it exists in everything.

As other have mentioned before, artists tend to not like science topics as it involves using the other side of their brain than what they are dominant in. I had to teach a Chemistry 101 course once, basically a real basic "Chemistry for Poets and Artists" class. The ones that struggled the most (artists) were those with a closed mind that did not want to learn the material. They did not want to have to think analytically if they could avoid it. The only time that they kinda warmed up to it was when I discussed order within crystal structures and showed examples of how atoms pack together.

I've always been a scientist and an artist.

I have an MSEE degree and I play the violin.