Dialectical musings on the relationship between art and science

Frankenstein’s Womb really got me thinking about the relationship between science and art (specifically literature). After throwing in some dialectics into the mix, I’ve come up with some musings about this relationship. While these thoughts are still in their infancy and in need of maturation, I encourage anyone to complicate, contribute, or refute my ideas.

I’ve come to the conclusion that art and science are one in the same, or at least very similar. Literature (and all forms of art) gives us an experience of the world by interpreting it through the recreating and reflection of different histories, ideologies, realities, which helps us to understand the world around us—by using gothic tropes, the sublime, the picturesque, etc. to comment on social inequalities, for example. Science, on the other hand, uses empirical knowledge and observations to seek a better understanding of our world/reality. However, I don't think that we can get to a full understanding of our world by simply looking at these two entities in isolation. Rather, I think that if we look at them dialectically and combine and weave them together we see how art and science ebb and flow with one another we will see that they do not deal with different problems, instead they deal with the same problems but in different ways. Or more distinctly, science gives us a conceptual knowledge of our worldview (our understanding) and art (literature) gives us the experience of that worldview; when used together, both can be the roadmap to reach a greater understanding.

I don't know exactly how relevant these ruminations are to the graphic novel, but I felt like sharing these, hopefully they help in some way, shape, or form.