(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); We apply the scientific method to the arts. Think about it. Was having a good conversation with a buddy yesterday. He is a literature teacher. And I was trying to explain to him the philosophical differences between the two that I noticed. First of all, they are opposites. Scientists are unifiers, they try to unify concepts, reduce them to their simplest, purest form. A scientist wants to leave the world clearer, and simpler than he found it. He removes mystery from the world.

Art does the opposite. And, ironically, it was two of the greatest scientists who have some of the best quotes on art. Francis Bacon, simply said: "The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery." Exactly! Art continues to make the world more mysterious, while science aims to make it less mysterious. Art touches something in us that is not easily defined, its layered in metaphor, it is a such a complex and nuanced connection, it is mysterious. It requires mystery, I almost want to say once it is figured out, it is no longer art. When it is gotten to the bottom of, it is no longer art, but another soulless fact to be repeated and categorized. It should be up for interpretation and debated eternally. Art is not about technical mastery either, that is another mistake. If art is simply reduced to how a person can perform the mechanics, how well technique is performed, it is no better than athletics.

It's funny, the word for "amateur" comes from the word "love". So an amateur artist is doing it only for the love of the thing, whereas the pro has it as job. Back in classical times, it was the amateurs who were seen as the "true" artists, because they were doing it simply out of love, while the pros were something less because it was strictly a vocation. Amateur has come to be an insult in modern usage, and that is because they are seen as not as skilled. If you call somebody an amateur, that is not a compliment. Somehow, amateur was hijacked into "lacking skill", when that isn't the point. Again, too much focus on technique. The point is that amateur doesn't mean lover and art does not mean skill. In fact, there are people with plenty of skill who I would not even call artists. A great violinist may be able to play any piece of music down to the note, but if she doesn't create anything herself, I don't consider her an artist. She is good at mimicry, and she may not have anything to express.

A writer is a true artist. An actor, a singer, is simply a medium of art. The two are not the same. The musician who can't find notes for example, sure that can be cured by learning notes. But the writer, what does he do? Learn words?

This is why I think writing is the highest art, because it relies on the fewest mediums. The word is the most primal form of expression. It is literally what thought is made of. And I think no art distills life like the word. So because it is natural, it requires the least artificial structure which you so champion. I mean words were literally designed to translate ideas, that is their entire purpose. I don't need anything else. I don't need to learn a bunch of scales, how to manipulate a piece of wood or metal. And every time my thoughts and feelings are translated through an artificial medium, I feel they are diluted. Putting my words directly into thoughts is the most concentrated form of art. And when you get away from that concentration, you have to start worrying about the framework of the medium more than the source itself. I am completely unconcerned with any type of framework as a writer. We do not think in music. Word is the bridge to thought.

Language is so very important to human evolution. I would argue it is the single most important thing that ever happened to us. We would not even be able to ponder these ideas without language. Language makes self-reflection possible and self reflection is the basis of all art. Language and art cannot even be separated.

It is much harder for something to study itself than something else. And when humans study art, they are studying themselves. It becomes philosophical, and philosophy is much more complex than science. Science is much more ordered, structured, streamlined.

In a lot of English classes, you read, and discuss what you think it means. You deconstruct it, reduce it to a problem to be solved. Like a scientist would. And here is the other great quote on art by a scientist, "Poets do not write to be understood." by Feynman. And they don't. But we spend all so much time trying understanding them, the same way we do a scientific problem. A good historical battle on this subject is between Newton and Blake.

Blake said Newton was a soulless unifier. Though he actually wasn't, he was philosophical and very religious, and thought by discovering nature's laws, he was merely examining God's handiwork. Science was a way for him to get closer to God. To know his creation. Guys like Newton and Bacon thought the best way to know God is through science, because it most precisely describes his handiwork.

That is beside's the point anyway, Blake's main objection with Newton is that Blake thought what Newton was doing is akin to reading Shakespeare, and instead of letting the words connect to you, and appreciate it as art, Newton would be more concerned about what the material the book was printed on was made of. He would want to explore the chemical composition of the book. And that deeply offended Blake. He painted a picture, in fact: You must login or register to view this content.

So here is all this beauty, and Newton is sitting at the bottom of the sea focusing on a math problem.