seen a lot of similarities between the work of artists and scientists.
Both activities are creative (or discovery) processes that must obey certain
rules/constraints and are developed with the help of tools.When a composer starts creating a new piece of music, probably the first thing
he thinks about is the set of rules he will follow (most of the times he willchoose standard rules from a certain school such as classical European tonal
music, popular tonal music, serial music, stochastic music, concrete music,Indian classic music, native-Brazilian music, etc.). After that he'll think
about the tools he'll use (e.g., pen and paper, a musical instrument, a scoreediting software, a programming language, a set of algorithms to be executed
either by his brain or by a computer, etc.).After the constraints and tools are set, the creative process begins
as GenerativeAndEvaluativeProcesses.The work of a music ensemble is very similar. They choose which piece to play,
which instruments to use and then start an iterative process that could lastfrom a few hours to several months. In this GenerativeAndEvaluativeProcesses
the ensemble generates new ways to play the same piece, evaluates each ofthem and keeps the ones its members enjoyed the most.
When developing a new system, a computer scientist chooses his constraints
(programming language, computational environment, programming rules andguidelines), picks his tools (debugger, testing framework, design patterns,
algorithms, etc.) and starts an iterative process of creating lines of codeand refactoring them to make them more enjoyable. -FabioKon
I am reminded of Harry Partch, whose mathematical system of tonality (just intonation) led him to create his own instruments, which he had to do before he could compose music for them. Many audience members weren't used to hearing such pieces, but learned to appreciate them--as they learned to appreciate the Stravinsky that first caused them to riot. -JanetHolmes
I think scientific and mathematical standards are more flexible than you think. -rpg
There's a school of HistoryOfScience that likes to point out that maths is, after all, a social construct. How do you know you have a valid proof? Um, you ask some other mathematicians. It's also interesting to hear composers talk about "solving problems" when they're writing. --SteveFreeman
One of the things that I find has gone missing in a lot of modern poetry education is the focus on constraints and tools. People seem to forget the modernists of the 20's had usually mastered various metrical forms before abandoning them (more accurately, subverting them). This isn't really so different from the ideas in martial arts that one must practice forms (kata) for a long time, before being able to reach a level of spontaneous creation (if ever). One of my favorite poets is the Anna Akhmatova. Unfortunately I can't read Russian, so I've had to read her work in translation -- but there is great structure to her work -- in metre, in imagery. The "tools" in this sense are the "skills" that allow one to work comfortably within certain sets of rules. Can you write a Villanelle? Can you write a Sloka? How about Renga form? Each of these forms has a different flavour and opens new avenues for creativity. Takes you down different paths. Or is everything free verse ... And if everything is free verse, how free is it? Look at the perfectly good sonnets that ee cummings wrote with perfectly odd line breaks. That's Freedom!
Every tool for thought is also a constraint. As the saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.