I used to think that art and science were separate, discrete: “the art and science of project management.” In my mind, the art-part was more appealing and mysterious. But as with other things we want to understand, they run back together on the page when you try to separate them.
Both art and science take on the unknown, but approach it in different ways.
Man imitates God through creation: can fashion a human on canvas, through words, through sculpture, through drama (art).
Man circumvents nature to heal, cure, innovate, invent, reveal meaning (science).
Art requires the science of technique and form, but can’t be explained the same way. We can’t measure how you feel, or specify where art begins and ends. And like science, it’s always changing. The evidence of art is subjective, whereas science has proof. Science insists the world is not flat: art can make you believe otherwise, and should.
Science is artful when its design is pleasing to the hand and eye (Apple). Art can be broken down to craft, learned through repetition and formulas.
The science of project management requires logic to drive the work forward: don’t have the roofers come until the walls are up. One has to happen after the other. The art is convincing the roofers it’s not their responsibility to comment on the work of the other trades, but rather, to cooperate with them.
(You can take classes for all this stuff, but it’s often different in the field.)
Would good as we know it still be good, without evil? Or does it need evil to define itself by contrast, and vice versa?
Is art “Art” because it can’t be proven, can’t be pinned down? Birds make music and man makes music.
Man makes birds? In art…not in science, please.