Thread: Can one have both?

well, i'm big with sciences and i'm also a poet (hence the title, the bard of flashdaddee)...

although i think that you are strictly speaking of drawing-ish type arts.

well you either a creative person or scientific person. can one have both??

Generally, one good in maths are sucky at drawings.

Creativity and mathematical/scientific ability are not at all incompatible.
First off, i think that some people are failing to make several distinctions. If you are a good at drawing, painting, etc, this does not necessarily mean that you are creative OR artistic. It means that you have technical skill. Just because you can draw anime well etc does not mean that you can produce art, or at least the Aristotelian perception of it (clarity, harmony, something else) etc. The difference between some kid drawing lifelike portraits and a Van Gogh consists of far more than mere technique. The same thing goes for music. You may have the technical skill of Stevie Ray Vaughan (taylor) but this does not make you an artist-you probably will never be as creative as Jeff Beck or Lou Reed (not directed to anyone in particular).
Some are similarly missing the distinction between ability at math or science and possessing mathematical or scientific insight. The latter usually implies the former, but the converse is not always true. Lots of students are far advanced in their studies, but lack the insight and creativity of Gauss or Einstein. For example, I know a guy who is taking AP Calc as a sophomore, and is unable to prove relatively simple theorems and perceive mathematical relationships at the level of some I know who do not possess his ability. Of course, I also know a girl who took AP Calc as a freshman and DOES possess astonishing insight, but then again she got perfect scores on her SAT Is, ACTs, four SATII's, and 11 AP tests. Not to mention she's charismatic and beautiful...God some people have it all, don't they? Anyways.
To attain greatness in math or science one does need immense creativity. For example, Kurt Godel came up with one of the most astonishing results in the histoy of civilization, and I don't think he relied upon skill alone. Skill in math, for the most impart, implies an ability of deduction and relying upon known rules. Mathematical brilliance, however, implies an amazing ability to make connections and, perhaps even more so, an astonishing intuition, maybe akin to whatever Garry Kasparov has that I don't, besides memory and a lot of body hair. That is what enabled Einstein to conceive and prove the correctness of the General Theory of Relativity even though there were at the time a minimum of facts that supported or indicated the existence of the principles that constitute the theory.

My answer is a definite yes. As someone else said, it takes a creative mind to make original scientific advances as Einstein, Newton, or any of many other great scientists did. During the Renaissance, art and science were grouped together as the "humanities." People like Leonardo da Vinci and others studied nature, drew nature, and duplicated nature; their creativity was their analysis of everything of concern to humans (thus, humanity): nature, anatomy, society, the physical sciences, etc.

Also, as someone already said, art is not just the realistic depiction of images (nowadays, photography can do that); it is the expression of emotion. Anger distorts the world? A painting could show that distortion.

Both great artists and great scientists need to be able to make be creative and make unseen connections; they just look at the world in different (though not contrary) ways. Have I seen many examples of people posessing both in person? No. Have I seen a person with great skill in just one of those areas. Very rarely.

here is another challenge,

do you consider vector drawing an art or science?
i reckon vector drawings are both . .

for eg 3d animation, is it an art thing or a science thing? or both?

i find it a little hard to do creative creative things. I can spend hours looking at codes, but i cant spend hours trying to design something. i get bored!!

Heh thats funny. I have the opposite problem. I can make something and code for hours striaght, but I can't sit and look at code for more tham 5-10 minutes. That can be a problem in my computer class. I'm the best programmer in the class, but I suck at helping other people debug logical errors in their programs. It's fustrating.