Strange coming from a guy with an art degree who works in a STEM mecca like a science center, but I’ve discovered that I am not a fan of either science or art. At least not in their most basic forms. I’ve known zealots in both fields (siblings and relatives, actually), and at their extremes neither camp seems to show much tolerance for the other. What does excite me, though, is the impact, consequences, and applications that science and art leave behind – especially when both are used together.

The concept of “STEM” was established as an umbrella effort to entice young minds to take up technical careers. But since the student pool is a finite number, for every person who chooses a STEM job, obviously one less goes into a liberal arts career. On the surface, this seems to throw down the gauntlet for competition.

As I see it, though, there are several ways to combine the arts and sciences so that the two career paths coexist without competing. One can be used to help explain the other; each can complement the other, or the two can be combined so that each is more than the sum of both.

To me, the ideal is not to complement but to find true integration. Once you get past the cultural biases in each field, it shouldn’t be that hard to do. Both art and science explore failure, redesign and then do-over. To advance, both rely on revolutionary and evolutionary thinking. Both require intense gray matter time followed by considerable physical labor and field-testing. And since art and science are processes, you can be a scientist, engineer or artist anytime, anywhere.

That said, it seems to me both science and art could be practiced simultaneously with little or no extra effort but producing interesting synergies.