Science and art - these are two words that one would hardly ever expect to see in the same sentence, and indeed, the two fields appear on the outside to be entirely different. In fact, those who pursue the field of science have seemingly put forth a great deal of effort towards differentiating science from other fields. Maybe it is only natural for one to want their work to feel more meaningful than that of others. Those studying science and engineering, myself included, are probably all guilty at one point of making conceited jokes about how the field of social sciences is not “real” science or how art majors were just not smart enough to do science. Of course, we are not the only responsible party. Artists probably pride themselves for being more in touch with their senses and so on. Cultural preconceptions dictate that science is for awkwardly dressed nerds in thick spectacles while the cool kids do other things. Perhaps the above are the reasons for many of the preconceptions regarding science and art. Science is deconstructive; art is constructive. Science is analytical; art is intuitive. Science is logical; art is creative.

This need to separate science and art is actually an area where contemporary thought has fallen behind that of our ancient predecessors. Take Leonardo da Vinci for instance. What was he really? A scientist or an artist? An engineer or a philosopher? The answer is all of these and many more. He is not alone either. There are many great polymaths noted throughout history, and this was only possible because they did not need just choose one, as seems to be the case today.

The truth is, the distinction is much more blurred than popular culture makes it out to be, if there is a distinction at all. The methods may differ but all fields are, in my view, ultimately aiming for the same objective: to explain the world around us. For this reason, the idea that artists just do without thinking is just as large a myth as the idea that scientists do not need creativity or inspiration to do their work. Many of our greatest scientific theories, including Einstein’s theory of relativity, were based on intuition followed only later by analysis. And while I am certainly no expert, I would think that creating an artistic work requires just as much forethought and analysis, as it does creative and artistic talent.

One side effect of this forced distinction between science and art is that it has made it easy for people to say things such as, “I don’t know anything about science, so I’m not going to read this article about a breakthrough in particle physics,” or, “I don’t know anything about art, so I’m not going to watch this musical.” The reality is that one does not need to possess a doctorate degree to find science interesting or be a brilliant musician to find music beautiful. It would not be accurate to say that science and art are two sides of the same coin, or different bands of a continuous spectrum even. Rather, it may be better to represent art and science as being in a state of quantum superposition, or perhaps as two different harmonic resonances of a superstring.