A rather common perception of science is the comparison between the process of creating a scientific work and working on an object of art. This analogy can be easily comprehended, as a valuable scientific work requires imagination, reoccurring observations and a synthesis between the scientist’s own ideas and the findings. Needless to say that science, regardless of the discipline practiced, is a highly innovative field, where novelty is one of the main markers of value and quality.
The question, however, is whether or not this analogy can also indicate that art (in the sense of creation, excluding art studies) is a science. Svetlana Alpers’ attitude towards the issue is rather ambiguous. In her 1998 essay The Studio, the Laboratory, and the Vexations of Art, which constitutes the critical framework this paper tries to address, the author finds some evidence that support the analogy, but suggests extreme cautious as of the derived comparison between the studio and the laboratory.
