The compatibility of art and science

A brilliant opening debate for the first lecture and something which I have often thought about myself, however I would say that the lecture has caused my view to change and consider that there can in fact be no unity between science and art. To simplify, based on the notes I have reviewed this incompatibility seems to me to be present because science sticks rigidly to rules and principles, which outlines its theories, whereas art is about breaking boundaries in order to explore new possibilities of beauty. In addition the artists themselves often pursue lives that satisfy every spontaneous whim often breaking rules which people are bound by. Just a few examples of how I came to this conclusion include: Kant's idea that the common people should be bound by morality, except artists, leaders and creative people who should make their own rules. Also the mention of religion and beliefs causing tension between the two spheres further shows the incompatibility between the two, as the artists with their Buddhist or like Schopenhauer Hinduism beliefs, are looked down upon by the traditional christian scientists.

I would just like to comment on Kant's view of equality before I conclude, the view that artists are not bound by morality is something which I strongly disagree with as I understand that it is necessary to explore new domains to create and understand beauty, but I don't see how ones profession raises them to the status of a god, as that it can be inferred one becomes if they are not bound by the laws and conscious ties of most people, like all things there should be boundaries which should not be crossed by anyone. For example the poem 'The Laboratory' by Robert Browning is about murder out of revenge, does this mean that artists should embrace murder to better understand it?