Would the metaphorical offspring of art and science be better than their parents, mediocre, or oxygen thieves?

This is the basis the discussion currently being held on the New Scientists website (yay, you guys are awesome).  They’ve written not only an editorial on the subject, but assembled the viewpoints (with more still to come, I believe) of a unmber of extremely interesting people who might have a viewpoint on the subject.

My first thought when I came across said series was ‘well, art and science haven’t always been separate from each other’.  Mr Da Vinci of course sprang to mind, but many other scientists/artists have been able to legitimately use that forward slash.

Yes, things are a little different now, but overall I’m glad to see the two getting into bed with each other.  There’s much that each can learn from the other, and I firmly believe that if properly done, the resulting works could be far more than the sum of their parts.  It might also help address the issue of science becoming increasingly complicated (and complex) just at a time when public understanding of at least its basics is vital to the decisions we make as societies.

Of course, some of it will also be relatively vacuous, but maybe that’s ok, too.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

*Curious?  Here’s a BBC news vid about it…Also, what wouldn’t you give to be at the Shanghai expo right now?