Art is something which confounds our senses. Science appeals to our propensity towards the measurable. Hence, art occurs when so many simultaneous variables work together to present a package that stimulates our senses in a way that just makes us say, “Holy Shit that was amazing!”

The key lies both in the inspiration and the execution.

Inspiration

It’s one of my pet peeves nowadays, that schools only ever teach students how to solve problems, they never teach how to find out what problems to solve. I feel this is because the educators have no knowledge, or at least no recognition for the process of inspiration to pursuit an endeavour.

And I admit, it isn’t entirely their fault. In fact, I’d say that the fact that inspiration comes so fleetingly and at so hopelessly inappropriate times makes the concept of teaching it extremely hard to grasp by the reigns.

Though sudden inspiration comes to us no matter what field we are in, I think the artist is plagued moreso by this inconsistency. Science usually follows upon various logical thought processes. Then suddenly everything converges, the ideas fit together. Eureka!

I may be wrong, but my own creative process in composing music, as well as that of others is hardly like that. It’s like a tune suddenly comes into our heads and if we don’t record it somehow, it’s gone forever, or at least much harder to retrieve. This is less a problem for the scientist, who usually can fall back upon empirical concepts for inspiration.

This is much harder in art, because though we can define such concepts (eg: music theory), it doesn’t lend itself to a definitive answer.

Science is basically an act of convergence, an attempt for hard to vary explanations. Art, one of divergence, of trying to make the familiar things seem new in various different aspects. No wonder artists over the years have made a name for themselves as being manic, bipolar alcoholics. Their job is so much harder!

Jackson Pollock's Art. Image Credit: abstract-art.com

I think the distinction is best seen with professional Chess players. A computer can calculate every single possible move and outcome from a single point in the game. If we could do that, we’d all be chess masters.

But the real masters can’t do that either, at least not consciously. What they have in fact is the experience of many thousands of games such that they can see the moves which will most likely provide them with a favourable outcome. This is something the layperson cannot do.

It is this condensing of experience, science and judgment of the odds that we cumulatively call intuition that defines an art.

I think that eventually we will be able to dissect art down to its fundamental elements. We can explain why Pollock’s art is so amazing, its the math; its the fractals hidden in the seemingly random spatters. We may very likely employ algorithms to duplicate his artwork at will.

But the art will remain, because there would be only the distinct few who can manage to produce the final result. It baffles the logical mind, as it should; the human mind is a wonderful thing.

{ 0 comments }