Art and science: bonded by creativity

If you were asked to define creativity, what would you say? The chances are that your definition will vary with others – many others. There is no instruction manual. While the creation of certain products may follow a ruleset, this process isn't creativity per se.

So, creativity is perhaps more concerned with a realisation of something intangible: turning loosely-formed but clearly-visualised ideas into something that is truly groundbreaking. By this broader definition, creativity not just informs artists to produce spectacular results, but also scientists, given that the common quest for artists and scientists is to effectively visualise the invisible.

Arthur Miller's work focuses on the cognitive processes and powers of visualisation that enable the boldest and most powerful creators to see a world which exists beyond sense perception, where there resides objective truth.

His talk, taking place tonight at UCL, uses examples of artists and scientists making bold, world-changing discoveries borne out of one's own sense of creativity to stunning effect.

Miller's views on creativity start with the similarities between artists and scientists in that nascent, magical moment of discovery. Both artists and scientists initially think along highly conceptual lines; Einstein and Picasso discovered new aesthetics to produce their best work. An aesthetic which was new to Einstein produced the Theory of Relativity, and Picasso developed a new aesthetic of reducing forms to geometry, something which would become the hallmark of cubism.

What unites these creative processes is a consistent trajectory within the conscious and unconscious mind.

"In conscious thought, where artists and scientists are at their easels or desks, they work out a problem. They will meet a impasse. When the impasse is very strong then they will cease work. They cease work only consciously; that intense and passionate desire to solve a problem is kept alive in the unconscious, where it can be turned over in unlikely ways, and goes through fewer barriers. An illumination - the solution to the problem – ultimately occurs, surfacing through to the unconscious, with verification following at one's leisure."

Of course, there are certain differences between art and science. These concern expectations and methods which are specific to each discipline. But, there, the differences end. The cycles of thought in both art and science are, according to Miller, basically the same. "Art, just like science, is problem-oriented, and both subjects are rule-governed. However, occasionally, someone comes along and breaks the rules."

However, not everyone can break the rules. According to Miller, this is essentially self-selecting, Darwinian: some people are simply stronger at challenging predetermined "rules" than others, and that's that. Challenging the rules must also invite public exposure to new thinking.

"It's character-specific. They are not afraid of making mistakes, and are highly focused. When they are working on a problem, all else disappears, and they push everyone else out of their lives. The highly creative people who I have studied, lead personal lives which are something of a mess. They're able to see connections amongst disparate disciplines that others are unable to see.

"They also put their work up to public scrutiny. Scientists publish their work, and artists put their work up for sale. There are people around that say that they are a genius, but are misunderstood: nobody publishes their scientific papers or buys their artwork, but there's a reason for that. People like Einstein, Picasso, Cezanne, Bach, and Mozart sell their works, put their work up for scrutiny, for review."

Because Miller's view of creativity is based on varying degrees of interpretation and execution, there is clearly a difference between the challenging, rule-breaking work, and creative actions that anyone can carry out - a position broadly shared with Alf Rehn. That makes creativity less about a subjective interpretation, and instead based on a wider, shared understanding of differing levels of creative endeavour. "For me, creativity is the production of results that go beyond the premises. That's magical to an extent. You always begin with knowledge that is known, then you build from there. Creativity is to go beyond the known. We all do creative things every day, but then there is 'Big creativity' - people that bust barriers, push the envelope."

Miller's considerations also help to clarify some particular types of creative endeavour. While you can teach someone to be a brilliant piano player, the process does not in itself make that person any more creative: they just become better at solving a problem.

Solving pre-existing problems is not where either artistic or scientific creativity genuinely lies. "There are people that discover new problems, while others work on existing problems. This tiny minority discover new problems and break out into new areas." The focus on how these new problems were solved, through the study of the lives of these incredibly creative innovators enables, in Miller's view, cognitive science to produce new theories to enable us to better understand the thought processes of those creative leaders, as well as enable us to better understand our own – although, clearly, the context of some people simply being more creative than others means that we cannot just transfer the "magic" from one person to the next. It's about understanding how the brain works, not a duplication of perceived genius.

Miller sees highly creative scientists as using notions of aesthetics and beauty which are somewhat akin to those used in art. "Highly creative artists are driven by science. Art can also enable us to understand science better. There are many interesting cases along those lines. Art is good for science. Both [art and science] use aesthetics and beauty in their own way; they both use those notions to enable us to better understand an external reality that is beyond our sense of perception." In other words, someone that is "highly creative" and take an aesthetic approach to new problems, will deliver groundbreaking work.

Because Miller sees so many similarities in how art and science view and use creativity, he sees a future as featuring hybrid, interdisciplinary people that can encompass both the artist and the scientist.

Perhaps, with the more groundbreaking work across advertising, digital art and elsewhere, these "hybrids" are starting to become more prevalent. If we're just scratching the surface, then the next few years will see a world of extraordinarily creative work open up.

Arthur I. Miller is a scientist and writer at University College London. "Creative Art, Creative Science" takes place tonight (12 April) at UCL. His website is arthurimiller.com, and he is on Twitter at @arthurimiller.