Does Art Inspire Science?

Jacob Bronowski wrote, in an essay titled "The Reach of Imagination," that science and literature "flourish (and languish) together; the great ages of science are the great ages of all the arts, because in them powerful minds have taken fire from one another." Also by writting that "Galileo and Shakespeare . . . grew into greatness in the same age," he seems to believe that an environment with rich art will spark scientific creativity.But the Soviet Union's experience seems to contridict Bronowski's claim. Although a lot of state approved art was produced, free artistic expression was supressed. And yet Soviet space and nuclear science thrived. And what is the state of Russian science now, in the post-Soviet period?Anyway, this might be a boring topic, but for some reason it's interesting to me. Anyone have an opinion?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?Why not: an environment with rich scientific creativity will spark art?This would at least explain the SU contradiction; They would have had the free artistic expression if the government hadn't suppressed it

It would seem to me that the first requirement for a culture rich in both science and art is a culture that doesn't need everyone producing food in order to live. Art and science do not directly put food in one's mouth (at least in the classical Galileo type of scientific discovery). You need a culture where people can . . . well. . . goof off and be unproductive. I think we humans naturally gravitate towards making art when given the chance, and our curiousity knows no bounds. All that is missing is the time to indulge in these behaviors.

One word --- Lysenko.Yes, some aspects of Soviet science "thrived" the same way any scientific endeavor will thrive if a government throws enough money at it. Yes, they launched Sputink. It orbited the world. It went beep. Hurrah! Meanwhile the people who knew how to grow a better potato were silenced by fiat of the Glorious Communist State.There are reasons why their system collapsed, and this is one of them.

But no culture ever had everyone producing food. Many worked with the fur, making clothing to keep warm. Many crafted tools, weapons, things to carry water in, hats for the sun, shoes, etc., and this wasn't only women. Having trades men/women was common for most early cultures.Now a days making a hat, a vase, crafting metal, designing clothes, is considered a form of art. But that is a modern label. For early man, the people who made these items were as vital to the community as the people who gathered food or hunted for it.Even early forms of drawing I would imagine were quite necessary for survival.I also believe that art came before science, way before, and it wasn't always "art"; that's just what we call it now.Then again, and here's the real question that no one has asked yet and would prevent this thread to procede further.........What is art?- Oni

Onifre says: LOL!! In the end, all art is science.And all science is art.

I don't think there is any definitive link between art and science, other than perhaps some anecdote. I mean, one could people who like clam chowder and also like art. Or someone could find someone who likes bacon and also is drawn in by science. Should we then assume there is a link? I don't think so. I think it is just a matter of personal preference.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

It's easy to find examples of art inspired by science (such as a movie about human cloning), but not of scientific breakthroughs inspired by art. It seems to me that Bronowski was wrong, but I thought I might be missing something.Anyway, I realize that this is a dull topic, so thank you for your replies, everyone.IGIT