Art, Science and Technology
a way of looking at how they fit together and elicit aesthetic response
It would appear that we like to think in opposites. And not in simple opposites but in opposites where the one term somehow acquires precedence over the other. It simplifies things and appears to coincide with the way we like to think about how the world appears to us to be. There is yes and no, good and bad, false and true, beautiful and ugly, man and woman and there is art and science, or…art and technology.
Are any of these properly thinkable as opposites? I shall restrict myself to the last two pairs involving art, science and technology. I work at a ‘Technical University’ where these terms are certainly often presented as opposites. Let’s have a closer look at each.
Technology is defined as an activity that sets about creating artefacts on the basis of scientific knowledge. There is rigour involved. And to people involved with technology, that is precisely the problem with art. They cannot see any rigour in art. It gets me down a little. Mind you, I have a vested interests I must confess I love all three. I love Art; I love science, and I love technology. So quite honestly, I am heart-broken and rather fed up with this Machiavellian practice of setting one up against the other, which is heartily practiced by the people populating institutions for all three. But the practice has to stop. I do not like the nonsense we accept as truth about the difference between art, science and technology. This nonsense serves neither art, science nor technology, but only the vanity of idiots and status-craving careerists. Stop this stupid, destructive and Machiavellian practice!
The persistent cliché is that science is left-brained, and art is right-brained. The internet abounds in images of the sort where electrical circuits represent the left-hand brain and flowery patterns decorate the right-hand brain. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and stupid. Do all artists only draw flowers? Can artists not use science to explore their art? Can artists not be rigorous and scientific about their art? And the poor scientists…are their hard-wired brains not allowed to enjoy flowers? Are their scientific projects devoid of artistry?
It might be so that our left brain is more concerned with inductive and deductive processes and that the right brain is more concerned with abductive processes, but do not make the mistake of equating these processes with science and art! Both need both! Science is an artform. Technology is a particular way of practicing art. All three form a unity. But how?
The way we cut up chickens
Well, in order to get that relationship just so, we need to first address the way we categorize things. (see also the page on Categories) And that starts with the question: how do you cut up a chicken? Do you identify the various limbs and parts of a chicken? Are you perhaps an expert and do you allow yourself to be guided by the lines of fat visible under the skin, revealing the structural logic of a chicken? Do you then cut neatly at the joints and so create small parts defined as thigh and leg, wing and breast, back with neck and pope’s nose? Or do you cut it up like they do in parts of Africa and the Caribbean, much as you would slice bread? In that case you end up with sliced sections of the chicken, also interesting, revealing a completely different kind of information about the chicken, more like what you see in a full body scan.
Neither is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ in themselves. Depending on how you are brought up and perhaps how you eat your chicken the one method might be more amenable to you than the other. Both encourage a different way of eating.
The same question can be asked regarding maps. Take any map of Europe. Are you now looking at a political map with different colours defining each sovereign state? Or are you looking at a map of heights and vegetation, or perhaps you are looking at a geological map, or indeed a map of historical movements. Each kind of map tells its own story and divides Europe in very different ways.
These two examples can help us think about the proper relationship between art, technology and science. If you divide university disciplines up into faculties aligned along disciplinary boundaries, each will start behaving like little kingdoms. And that has its real advantages. But it also presents its challenges.
Kingdoms are about control and power, about political decisions about the economy and about competition. None of these are bad in themselves. However, you can also look at disciplines according to the activities and methods they employ.
In that case they divide very differently. According to a common-or-garden encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia we get the following defining activities for each: Art is the creating of artefacts or works to evoke aesthetic response. Science is the systematic building and organizing of knowledge, and technology is the creating of artefacts from the application of knowledge. (I paraphrase)
If we abstract those definitions, we get the words ‘creating’ twice, and the phrase ‘systematic building and organizing’ When we look at the final product or purpose of the activity we get ‘aesthetic response’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘artefacts’.
We could now ask ourselves the following questions: What counts as doing things in such a way as that we might judge that being creative and what counts as doing them well?
What does having an aesthetic response mean? What do you do when you are having a mild attack of aesthetic response? Is science always systematic or does it just end up with a system (or paradigm)? What is the activity of science? Is art not systematic? And…what is the role of knowledge in all three? And do we have a clear idea of what knowledge is? If technology makes artefacts, then how exactly is it different from art, which surely also is concerned with the production of artefacts in order to evoke some aesthetic response? And do the artefacts of technology and science exclude aesthetic response? Why? Might there be a way of seeing how the production of an aesthetic response is crucial to all three?
Perhaps we could in fact quite easily agree on a few positions. Surely all three, art, science and technology need knowledge (if with knowledge is meant causal competence) All three need creativity (if with creativity is meant explorative thinking and modal competence). All three make artefacts (tangible or ideational objects carefully crafted to fit some idea about them) And all three judge what they do against alethic (truth/accuracy), aesthetic (beauty/fittingness/perfection in terms of coherence and consistency) and ethical (good/bad, right/wrong) criteria. So that is not where they differ. Having said that they may well differ in the manner of doing these things, but they do not differ in the fact of doing them.
What kind of activity is science?
I do not think I am being very controversial if I say that science is an activity that explores the world by observing the behaviour of things on the assumption that the universe forms coherent and consistent whole that can be understood so that science is possible and a useful activity to spend your time on.
Science wonders at behaviour we do not understand and tries to model it in order to understand it and make predictions regarding that behaviour. It questions what something is, what it is made of and how it is organized, how it works and what role or purpose it fulfils within a larger system.
Science devises falsifiable theories to explain the above, inferentially; it tests those theories empirically, according to a rigorous protocol or method; it thus arrives at findings and interprets them, probabilistically; it ties these findings to possible consequences and sees what needs to be done next. It tries to build an accurate model of the world on the basis of which statements can be made that are true and false statement can be identified systematically.
What kind of activity is Art?
Art explores the world in whatever way it wants to and seeks to express whatever it wants to express. It need not assume that the universe is coherent and consistent so that it can be understood. In fact, it need not assume anything; alternatively, it can assume whatever it pleases. It may well wonder at behaviour exploring the world by observing the behaviour of things. It can in any case explore that behaviour in any way it pleases, expressing whatever it finds or comes up with in image, word, sound, smell, taste, texture, shape and or number and interpreting the resulting products or experience in whatever way it will, deriving meaning from those products through the way we use them.
So, there is a difference. On the basis of the above we can say that science excludes the more undisciplined freedoms that art may include if it wants, but art certainly does not exclude science.
The way we have formulated both activities we can see that Science behaves as a rigorous subset of art whilst art has the freedom to be either rigorous or not. Mind you, we must not forget that despite what the more unscrupulous scientists want you to believe, there is also something called sloppy and badly performed science. But that is stating the obvious. What is important here is that art is free to be either rigorous or not. It can accept academic standards of excellence, but it can also throw them to the wind as long as the artist doing so is prepared to accept the consequences, or do something about them.
Perhaps we can arrive at a more obvious difference between the three when we look at the role played, or purpose sought for each. We might then say that in order to evoke an aesthetic response, art is about making us contemplate and think about the world and ourselves, questioning or affirming norms and values.
Science on the other hand is to help us understand the world and ourselves, to help us build real knowledge and so gain control over our lives.
Technology helps us control and ease our lives, it helps the endeavour of science to reach parts it would not otherwise be able to reach, and it helps art to do things it would otherwise not be able to do.
The fact is that all three of them are forms of human endeavour… activities of which the final purpose is to help us accommodate ourselves intelligently, intelligibly, comfortably, securely, usefully and enjoyably in our environment.
The freedom to explore
All have an important connection to the idea of freedom…
Art must be allowed full freedom to explore that which it wants to explore by seeking out and testing boundaries, or indeed affirming and securing them.
Science must be allowed full freedom to explore that which it wants to explore in the best way possible. In other words, it requires academic freedom and the freedom to reform its methods where that becomes necessary, the freedom to reform paradigms where that is necessary, and however valued they may be by others, otherwise science cannot guarantee the production of accurate knowledge about the world on the basis of which we can speak truly.
Technology must be allowed full freedom to explore that which it wants to explore for fear of missing some brilliant innovation. A kind of techno-FOMO. Without the freedom to explore logical space and any space of implications within it, none of them can achieve their full potential.
At the same time all three are restricted in some way or impose restrictions upon themselves autonomously.
Art is restricted by the capacity of our mind and in a vague and difficult sense by its responsibilities to humanity, the environment and society.
Science is restricted by that too, but it is also restricted by a rigorous scientific protocol through which it can guarantee the quality of the knowledge it produces.
Technology is restricted by all the above and especially its responsibilities to humanity, the environment and society.
At the same time artists and scientists and innovators must all three test the boundaries of those restrictions…. It is in a peculiar sense their responsibility.
The most obvious way they are engaged with each other is that art that explores everything, including the worlds of science and technology. There is much science that explores art and technology for its own use or indeed as a subject for its own interest. Technology helps science and art to do what they want to do.
All three end up with a product. It might be useful to see how those products really differ.
Art ends up with products that helps you know yourself and make you think. It makes you think about all sorts of things and about what might be possible.
Science ends up with products that help you know and understand the world at large and think about all sorts of things and about what might be possible.
Technology ends up with products based on knowledge that help you work at art and science, and it helps you think about all sorts of things and about what might be possible.
Science can try to distinguish itself only on the basis of its scientific protocol. And where that works science is high and dry. However, there is nothing to stop an artist applying an equally rigorous or even identical protocol to their own art production. In fact, there are artists who explore that protocol in their artistic project.
Technology can try to distinguish itself from art through purpose: art makes you think, and technology helps you work, but art must work to help you think and technology must help you work well and satisfyingly in order to be useful. In other words, even technology has an artistic responsibility to fittingness and joy.
So, it is useful to distinguish between the three. But one has to be cautious. It is destructive to separate them and set them up as opposites. Why? Because they then begin to get a false idea about themselves and about the others, they are turning their back to. They start devising politically motivated borders that have more to do with sovereignty and power than with understanding and knowledge. The only people served by this are those not interested in art, science or technology, in thinking understanding and self-control but in their (social) capitalization: careerism and snobbery!
There is another argument to show how they form a unity in which distinction and differentiation is allowed, but separation shown to be wrong and that is the etymological argument which shows a clear homological relationship between the three.
Read the following three definitions. Again, they are hardly controversial for any of the stakeholders interesting in the restful harmony of resolution rather than the fun and excitement of battle.
Art (N.) early 13c., “skill as a result of learning or practice,” from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) “work of art; practical skill; a business, craft,” from PIE *ar(ə)-ti- (source also of Sanskrit rtih “manner, mode;” Greek artizein “to prepare”), suffixed form of root *ar– “to fit together.“(see also Harmonia) Etymologically akin to Latin arma “weapons.”
Science (N.) mid-14c., “state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;” also “assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty,” from Old French science “knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge” (12c.), from Latin scientia “knowledge, a knowing; expertness,” from sciens (genitive scientis) “intelligent, skilled,” present participle of scire “to know.”
The original notion in the Latin verb probably is “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” or else “to incise.” This is related to scindere “to cut, divide” (from PIE root *skei– “to cut, split;” source also of Greek skhizein “to split, rend, cleave,” Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan “to divide, separate”).
OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as “book-learning,” also “a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;” also “skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness.” From c. 1400 as “experiential knowledge;” also “a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade.”
From late 14c. in the more specific sense of “collective human knowledge,” especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation” is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.
The sense of “non-arts studies” is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek epistemē) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhnē), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.
The predominant modern use, “natural and physical science,” generally restricted to study of the phenomena of the material universe and its laws, is by mid-19c.
Technology (N.) 1610s, “a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts,” from Latinized form of Greek tekhnologia “systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique,” originally referring to grammar, from tekhno-, combining form of tekhnē “art, skill, craft in work; method, system, an art, a system or method of making or doing,” from PIE *teks-na- “craft” (of weaving or fabricating), from suffixed form of root *teks– “to weave,” also “to fabricate.” For ending, see -logy.
The meaning “study of mechanical and industrial arts” (Century Dictionary, 1895, gives as examples “spinning, metal-working, or brewing”) is recorded by 1859. High technology is attested by 1964; short form high-tech by 1972.
Reading through these definitions we see that science may exclude certain forms and activities of art, but that art definitely does not exclude science.
So here is my final conclusion… art is the broadest and most inclusive set and includes in it both science and technology which are…very special arts. Distinguish, but do not separate!
Science is the art of knowledge acquisition and organization according to rigorous protocols.
Technology is the art of increasing our control within our environment through artefactual prostheses.
And art is the intentional practice of any human endeavour.
Moreover, all human endeavour is judged aesthetically against criteria of coherence and consistency and leads to the satisfaction of something done, fitting with some idea we have of it. After that it is judged alethically, against notions of truth through correspondence and accuracy; and both of those are done to be able to judge between the good and the bad so that we can act wisely and well within the world.
Be careful to distinguish between activity, domain and value. The word art may now be associated with a specific domain, but that is a historical issue, not one that has any logical necessity behind it. Moreover, art defined as an activity does not automatically produce good art. Science as an activity does not automatically produce good science. Technology as an activity does not automatically produce good sustainable, circular and truly helpful technology.
So now we arrive at the last question posed at the beginning: Might there be a way of seeing how the production of an aesthetic response is crucial to all three?
Aesthetic response.
Let us, uncontroversially define aesthetic response as the feeling that something is either judged as pleasing or displeasing, satisfying or unsatisfying, beautiful or ugly.
We can avoid a wholesale binary approach here by saying that any whole can be so judged, but we can also divide up that whole into its working parts and judge any part in any way we see fit, thus arriving at quite complex and nuanced judgments.
Let us see the idea of pleasing and a feeling that arises when we see something fit well either with something else or some idea we hold. And let’s do the same with the word satisfying. Satisfaction and pleasure arise when something fits with something else. I.e. the two things are in harmony.
The term harmony, derives from the Greek ἁρμονία (harmonía), meaning “joint, agreement, concord”, from the verb ἁρμόζω (harmozo), “to fit together, to join”.
There were two kinds of stonemason in ancient Greece the Λιθοδόμος and Λιθολόγος. The one cut and dressed stones to fit together to build ashlar masonry walls, the other sought out stones that could fit together as dry stone walls. That is where the notion of harmony originates. Leon Battista Alberti famously defines beauty as “that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse.”
It does not differ from earlier or many later theories of beauty where beauty is equated with perfection (Pulchrum et perfectum idem est), rather but complements them and gives them a kind of practical point to look for which we might call the spoiling point. Go beyond this point and you have spoilt your food, your work of art, your design, your experimental set up, your production system, whatever. Fail to reach that point and your work is not yet complete, not finished, not yet satisfying.
The secret lies in the phrase reasoned harmony, in other words Alberti wants you to become explicit, or at least to be forthcoming when you are held to account. And is this not what we demand from every human endeavour, whether it be political, economic, social, cultural, scientific, whatever.
Good Art, good science and good technology when done well are all three of them creative, rigorous, free, responsible and… beautiful, in that creativity is expressed through exploratory thinking; rigour through thorough and legitimate reasoning using demonstrable evidence and so giving a proper account of every decision. Free is doing what you want, where both the doing and the wanting are under your autonomous control through learning and the blissful security of knowing. Responsible, is seeking your response in wisdom by knowing good means to good ends and their value. And beautiful… simply refers to finding a fit between a thing or situation and our ideas concerning them or involving them.
© jacob voorthuis, 2025. Please cite Jacob Voorthuis as the author, The Theoria Project as the title and the page address as the location. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially under the following terms: No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.