GreyMamba

I guess the thing that triggered this off was a discussion I've often had about 'creativity'. The simplest definition I found (thanks Oxord Dictionary on the web) is: 'The use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness'. Now too often the twittering classes seem to think this idea only applies to 'Art' and artists. Scientists and engineers tend to miss out because, after all, they're just developing things that have come before - not necessarily easy but not really 'creating' anything. Well that's the sort of dinner party I've been to in the past anyway.

Let's leave aside the odd outlier, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, a real renaissance man, but do we,for instance, consider Michelangelo to be more creative than Einstein, or Tracy Emin than Isaac Newton? Is Picassso's 'Guernica' in some way more unique and worthy than Fleming's discovery (actually there is some dispute over wether he was the discoverer) of Penicillin or Stephen Hawkins insights into Black holes? They certainly feel as if they are different in some way but is the art 'inspiration' and the science 'perspiration'? It all gets very untidy when the discussion then drifts towards which is more important - science has produced most of the modern world and we no longer die early and in pain from diptheria, whooping cough and smallpox but life might be a bit grim withough art - so lets ignore that aspect for the time being.

As a first step, it seems to me, we need to somehow differentiate between the two types of activity. What exactly is the difference between art and science. You could make the arguemnt that the earliest forms of art - cave paintings of hunted animals, is, in a way, a form of science in that it might well be an attempt to try and understand the world and predict or even influence events. But most people would say that the science done at CERN is poles apart from the installation art of Juan Muñoz.

So here's my starter for 10 (or whatever it's worth). How about if we look at the space into which the creative mind is going to place the new concept. A new scintific concept is unique - there is only one correct idea amongst all the infinite possible answers. Science is never able to 'prove' it is correct (only disprove itself) but the description of our universe inherent in Einstein's theory of general realtivity is a far closer match to reality than anything (even Newton's) that came before.

The flip side is Art. There is no single correct answer or an ideal to get closer to. A cubist materpiece is not more correct than a Dali clock or a Turner sunset. But does this make any 'creation' a valid work of art? Are the pictures painted by the elephant, or chimp, or horse artisically valid? Well I have a suspicion that the answer is yes, they are. They may not be masterpieces but they are valid. Only time will judge them as being brilliant or just random assemblages. They can be judged on technical proficiency, originality, power to stir emotions, monetary worth in today's markets - or any other test you may dream up. But there is no universal arbiter who can be say ' yes, this is great art'. I did hear an interview with Tracy Emin some time ago where she said something along the lines of 'yes, this is art because I made it and I'm an artist'. Maybe that is the best definition of art that we have.

So, in a way there are an infinite number of artistic forms without bound but a scientific idea is either correct or it isn't - there is only one form. So the 64 thousand dollar question is: can science be creative if you're just looking for a needle in a haystack or is art really creative because you can produce any old tat and define it as art?

Well, that's your homework for next week - off you go.