Does Art influence science as much as science influences art? Throughout the 19th and early part of the 20th century, science and art were modes of enquiry more closely related than they are now. Impressionists and Neo-Impressionists directly utilised scientific discoveries in their work. These new paintings acted as experiments that tested the science the artists drew inspiration from. The role of artist and scientist are now much further removed from one another. One reason for the drift between the two disciplines is the complexity and specialisation required to take on modern scientific research areas. Scientific art does exist but for the most part its graphic or sculpture based. Usually the science comes first then the artwork follows. However, in broad terms the Artist and Scientist of today are still dealing with questions like existence and the meaning of it. I propose that both artists and scientists should come together perhaps look for ways to merge their respective areas of research. Interdisciplinarity is key, Artists could think more like Scientists and vice versa in the attempt to create work in a context beyond their usual role. I coined the term scipressionism to help describe this reciprocal approach. A scipressionist artist would draw upon the more conceptual scientific ideas and maybe use aspects of those discoveries within the work itself. Another example is a scientist who creates artwork as part of their experiments to test theories in a new field of research. In this new scenario its harder to distinguish differences between art and science.
Another issue is what aspects of science can be defined as art but I will try to tackle that in another post.