I've always wondered if being a scientist isn't closer to being an artist than most people think! What I mean is that we have to be incredibly creative in our experimental designs and particularly imaginative when we analyse data and need to find a meaning out of black and white lines!
I’ve always found that scientists despite their geekiness and nerdy looks could be super creative. When I was one of them (actually, I still am a scientist, it’s a way of life really…), I would see countless videos of fellow scientists parodying songs to depict the true life of lab researchers.
But of course, this goes completely against what we all know, which is that the left brain is the analytical, practical, organised and logical (i.e. Science) side; and the creative, passionate, arty part sits on the right side of the brain.
How do we then explain why scientists spend hours and hours pouring their hearts out and losing their minds over scientific enigmas if there is no passion and poetic craziness involved?
Although there is some truth to the left brain/right brain distinction, there is undeniably a more complex relationship between both sides of our brain.
(If you have time to watch it, this is a very interesting video… and his voice is very addictive!)
For example, on the neuroscience of creativity, latest findings by neuroscientists have now shown that the entire creative process – from preparation to incubation to illumination to verification – consists of many interacting cognitive processes (both conscious and unconscious) and emotions.
Depending on the stage of the creative process, and what you’re actually attempting to create, different brain regions from both the right and the left side are recruited in large-scale networks to handle the task.
So if we accept that science is not just the left side of the brain and can be interlinked with the artistic potential of an individual, could it be considered as a mean for influential creativity?
From my own definition: “Influential creativity is about connecting with an audience on a personal, emotional or practical level; it is about understanding their lives, getting comfortable with them and letting them know that you are there to make them feel better, or be better, or make them question themselves by providing them with an emotion, an ideal, a service, or a product.“
I do think you could apply this definition to the concept of science by saying: “Science is about connecting on a practical level, understanding lives, and it is there to make us question ourselves by providing us with both emotions and product i.e. knowledge.”
What do you think? Is it too farfetched?
0 Comments from amazing and lovely people:
Post a Comment