Science vs. Writing, if I Were a Painter

An interesting thought inspired from discussion in Steve's fiction class tonight which I neglected to say out loud in class, so I'll express myself here: we were comparing arts, which is always a subject I love - something I do on a daily basis, as it seems always to give me some kind of perspective on writing, a larger context perhaps in which to see mysef as an artist.

What I was thinking in my mind during class - and then couldn't find an opening, I suppose, to divulge the thought - was how one would never go so far as to call a painter or a sculptor a scientist, you know? And we were talking, in class, about how writing is so fucking steeped in tradition and that often its merit is determined by an adherence to such. Anyways, so my dad is a scientist, so the comparison is fresh kindle in my mind - but the fact is it is less of a stretch to say a writer is a scientist, even though a writer is as much of an impressionist as a painter or sculptor.

Science and writing are both largely upheld, these days, in universities; writers and scientists both recieve grants for their work (scientists more often, though), publish in journals; and if you look at a poetry professor and a science professor my guess is they might look remarkably alike. All goofy and shit.

What I think this fact concedes is that writing, in my opinion, in its modern day parallel to science, is considered less of an action than it should be. This is sad. Though I think there are similarities in processing of science and writing, I'm more moved to be the equivalent of a painter or sculptor. Someone working, and where innovation is not just seen as a risk or artistic endeavor, but a necessity, simply a reaction to survive and keep going.