In his piece, “Doing Science Making Art,” Professor Conway asserts a difference between making art and doing science, saying he does both. I think the distinction here is that in making art, an artist creates something new that did not necessarily exist before, whereas a scientist follows a technique and process. I’m not sure that I agree with this and I argue that one can make science just as one makes art.
About art, Conway says, “Techniques are employed because they have predictable results.” Conway gives the example of pairing red and green together, knowing that one color will make the other pop more. If results are known, aren’t artists doing art rather than creating something new? Isn’t this the same for scientists? As we discussed in class, scientists know how certain elements will react under certain conditions and are often manipulated to act as such—in these instances they are not creating something new but rather manipulating their tools for a desired result. For example, we know that a hydrogen atom, if placed with another hydrogen atom, will want to bond to create hydrogen gas, its more stable form. As such, chemists can predict outcomes and carry out experiments just as artists participate in Picasso’s “lies.”
Given the strategic nature of both art and science that Conway suggests and with which I agree, I think Conway’s point that “making art…is a cognitive act that has an indirect relationship with seeing” holds true for science too and I think both art and science can be “made” and “done.” I find that a lot of what scientists involve themselves with is conceptual and cannot necessarily be seen conventionally, with the naked eye. For example, during our green bean experiment in our first class, we did not see the changes to the magnesium happen on an atomic level but rather we saw the effects of the change and were able to learn about it that way. Thus, how much do scientists really have to see the changes to know the results — just as Picasso may not have created his famous portraits with the sitter right in front of him. In both scenarios, much is left up to the brain’s cognitive capacities to fill in the blanks.
Scientists “make” science through experimentation. Scientists “do” science when they look to their knowledge of processes. I think that the same can be said for artists. To me, “making” implies creation whereas “doing” is a use of knowledge.