I read a lot of science blogs and only rarely do I see a scientist talking directly about the arts. Most of the sciences are described as an art among themselves, but rarely do I see a direct correlation between the science and the art. Likewise, I have not really seen artists give much credit to science. There are a few modern mediums where artists will use some technological toy to produce art, but the two seem to be seen as separate entities.

Technology has greatly changed the way we produce art, but how has art changed the way we do science? The most I’ve seen is “artist’s renditions” of what a star or some astronomical event would look like. The affects of art on science is much more subtle than the obvious technological advances and it’s impact on art.

I used to argue that art is what advances a society. Scientists create the advances in the physical world that help us to understand it better and make life easier and safer and healthier. But what moves the scientists? What motivates the scientists and inventors? The arts. Art shows a diverse human side to life and presents it to everybody. It is that human depiction that drives and motivates us to make life better. While scientists are stuck in the cold physical world seemingly detached from life/emotion, artists are stuck in the ethereal world and are desperately trying to grasp those perfect ideas and those perfect stories that explode life and emotion onto the stage or into the book. Bringing the ethereal world and the physical world is done automatically. We don’t even realize we do it because it has been a large part of our society (any society) for thousands of years. Artists and scientists come together automatically and merge each other’s concepts and ideas and together life moves forward.

Art does not rely on science. It is a social construct that exists dependent on culture. Science depends on art, because without it science cannot move forward.