Leo Li, Truth (Wigram Allen Oration Prizewinner

TRUTH

By Leo Li

Wigram Allen Oration Prize Winner

In our world, where science, technology, engineering and mathematics dominate industry, we have often felt a societal push away from the Arts and towards these fields collectively known by their acronym, STEM. This socio-educational repulsion has resulted in a dichotomy being formed amongst our universities: the well-read though unemployable Arts student with a broad understanding of the world, and the STEM major with the social competence of a potato, looking at a guaranteed six-figure grad salary. As with all constructed dichotomies, we are at fault in our assumption that the two groups are mutually exclusive and hence that they should be individually pursued. In fact, we are misguided in our assumption that the two are different at all, given their rich and deeply entwined history. It is often said that there are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. I believe the first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. Rather, they co-exist as classifications of truth, the greater whole whose pursuit gives meaning to life. Together, they address the rational and irrational aspects of our humanity, allowing us to inch closer towards human apotheosis. They cannot stand alone, despite our unquenchable drive to pull them apart for isolated endeavour.

Looking at the past millennia alone shows that the division of art and science is very much a modern phenomenon and perception. The idea of the Western polymath reached its climax in the 16th century when Renaissance Men such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Galileo

40

produced timeless paintings, sculptures and even music, alongside breakthroughs in engineering, physics and medicine that still underpin academia today. This was a society where there was an understanding of general ability being ingrained within the human condition, rather than the myth of prodigious talent of incredible specificity that we see perpetuated today. If someone was well-versed in algebraic theory, it was expected that they, too, would be a competent musician, orator or artist. Today, this still holds true, but has deviated away from public thought, replaced by the common narrative of artistic creativity and academic rigour somehow being at odds. Einstein was a concert violinist worthy of the Juilliard School and an illustrious conversationalist, but all we remember him by is e=mc2 and a false image of nerdy social ineptitude. Taylor Swift probably does other things aside from cry about her exes to win Grammys, but rather than show this, she chooses to box herself into a category we all-too-comfortably accept. The same goes for Elon Musk, Katy Perry, David Attenborough, and all accomplished celebrities doing us the disservice of appearing as one-trick ponies rather than displaying polymathic careers. It is, then, an easy matter of interpolating on these omnipresent data points to conclude that the aesthetic and expressive must come at the expense of the systematic and analytical.

However, the fault is also ours in our collectivist need to categorise everything in sight. Whilst this is a useful tool when it comes to searching for inspiration, we play a risky game in the tradeoff between organisation and tunnel-vision. Roger Federer is obviously more than just a tennis player, but all we see is an iconic singlehanded backhand and Nike headband. Compounding on this, we associate him as one-half of his rivalry with Nadal in a bid to claim the status of being the greatest of all time, furthering our cognitive grouping and diminishing any curiosity of what lies on the periphery of his character. As observers, we can’t expect to always be spoon-fed information, and hence must go out of our way to understand the complexities of public characters. If we are to one day see a reunion of art and science, we need to break all our mental moulds formed by false stereotypes and widely-held preconceptions. We need to reaffirm ourselves with the notion that art and science aren’t absolutes, but rather different methods of pursuing the truth that has been and will always be. One method chooses to be emotional and understanding, whilst the other is analytical and observing. Though we love to prioritise the latter and proclaim its ever-increasing importance, without art, I argue there is no direction, whether that be academically or industrially. As T.S. Eliot put it, we should always “pursue the beautiful thing”, and hence without a conception of beauty, society is akin to a ship with infinite fuel for an infinitely powerful engine, but no destination in sight, allowing meaningless chaos to ensue.

It’s an unpopular opinion, but the Melbourne Model addresses this issue through the Breadth subjects we often deem unnecessary or even a money-grab by reputable academic institutions. Rather than being a vehicle to drive you further into HECS debt, Breadths represent a recognition of the need for a new age of Renaissance Men, a new breed of idea-filled, polymathic men and women capable of more than just one university course. I challenge the STEM majors in the room to pick up a course in history, visual art or music, and I challenge the self-proclaimed artists to have a stab at linear algebra, physics or chemistry. This will not only add useful skills to your arsenal and broaden your character through learning, but also contribute to our shot at a 21st Century Renaissance, a much-needed Golden Age in a time where problems such as climate change and political adversity plague society.

In the words of American novelist Raymond Chandler: “Without art, science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science, art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.” Let us go forth not as students of the Arts or Science, but rather as students of the Truth.