Perception is subjective and malleable in its very nature. It is also influenced by language, emotion, and reason. The nature of art requires that it is subjective to some extent. Because of perception's subjective nature, it provides an indispensable and extremely advantageous tool for artists. Art capitalizes on the subjective nature of perception, the ambiguity of language, the appeal of emotion, and the manipulation of reason. On the other hand, science requires that we eliminate bias in any way possible in order to constitute an applicable discovery. Because of this, perception also can pose a huge detriment to science if not used properly because of problems in perceiving, indistinct communication, erroneous emotional drives, and flawed paths of thought.

The elements of causal perception, propositional perceiving, seeing-as, and reasonable consideration of what we perceive all contribute to the subjective nature of perception. The majority of perception theories are causal theories of perception. As Audi states in Epistemology, there are four main components of causal perception: “the perceiver, the object perceived, the sensory experience in which the object appears to the perceiver, and the causal relation between the object and perceiver.” (31) This theory contributes to the idea that perception is subjective because the sensory experience may change and the relation between the object and perceiver is indefinite. For one, sensory experience is dependent upon the perceptive organs of the perceiver. As Berkeley states in Three Dialogues Between Hylas And Philonous, “What seems hard to one animal, may appear soft to another, who hath greater force and firmness of limbs.” This argument is not limited to animals, because humans vary in perceptive organs as well. For example, adults may not be able to hear high pitches as well as children can. The relationship between the object and perceiver also contributes to the subjectivity of perception. For example, the sound waves which serve as the relationship between sounds and our ears travel at a mere 340.29 m/s. Because of this, our perception of the time that the sound occurred is different from the time that the sound actually occurred. Propositional perception affects the subjectivity of perception as well. (Audi, 24) A major component of this is not propositional perception in itself, but rather the ability to communicate propositional perception. Because of the ambiguity of language, it is quite difficult to truly express what one perceives. For example, if water is not green or blue, but somewhere in between, there may not be a word to describe its color. Turquoise may not be sufficient, and greenish-blue or blueish-green may be the best description possible. This ambiguity in the description means that someone using the description to gain knowledge by acquaintance will have a somewhat ambiguous knowledge. Seeing-as and the adverbial theory of perception also contribute to the subjective nature of perception. (Audi, 25 & 41) The aspect of seeing-as that is important in affecting the subjectivity of perception is that it can lead one to jump to unjustified conclusions about what one is seeing. For example, if a person were to see a billboard on their way to work every day for a year, they would be more likely to see the billboard the same way they have always seen it, even if a slight change is made to the advertisement. This theory is also important because it shows that emotion can also contribute to perception. For example, a scientist may subconsciously wish for a particular result from an experiment, and be seeing-as when he collects the results of this experiment in order to satisfy his subconscious bias. This idea leads to another key idea of the subjective nature of perception, and that is that it also may be affected by reason. Reason affects perception and seeing-as in much the same way as emotion. If a man were to see a pig flying through the air, wings and all, he would most likely question his perception. This is related to seeing-as in that it involves the theory of induction because the man has most likely never seen a flying pig. Because of the abundant theories of perception, some may argue that perception is not subjective. However, this would contradict an overwhelming pool of evidence that perception at the very least has subjective elements. For example, if a man is hallucinating, it is practically indisputable that his perception is subjective. Because of this and the aforementioned arguments, it is clear that enough aspects of perception are subjective to have positive influence for art and negative influence for science.

In order to show that the subjective nature of perception is an advantage to artists, it is necessary to investigate what constitutes good art. Good art “requires creative perception both by the artist and by the audience, communicates on many levels and is open to many interpretations, connotes a sense of ability,” must “interplay between the conscious and unconscious part of our being, between what is real and what is an illusion,” and is “Any human creation which contains an idea other than its utilitarian purpose.” (Wikipedia) It is clear from this definition that art not only benefits from the subjective nature of perception, it depends on it. The first way art depends on the subjective nature of perception is through language. In the movie The Shawshank Redemption, Red captures the way in which art benefits from the subjectivity of language when he says, “I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. [...] for the briefest of moments, every last man in Shawshank felt free.” The men did not understand Italian, so the art was open to interpretation, which is a key aspect of art. It also made the men feel free, which is a blurring of the line between the conscious and unconscious. In these ways, the subjectivity of the language made for good art. Even in songs written in one's own language, the multiple connotations of words leave room for artistic interpretation. Clearly, the subjective affect of language on perception is an advantage to art. Emotion is the greatest perceptual contributor to art. A vast amount of art is made with the single goal in mind of evoking an emotional response. Because emotion affects our perceptions, our perception of art will be affected by the emotion it evokes in us. In the same way, reason also affects the way we perceive art. As an example of how emotion and reason affect our perception of art, consider the work House of Stairs by M.C. Escher. This piece plays on our perception of the direction of the stairs. We can see that the stairs do not make reasonable sense, and this elicits a certain emotional response of perplexity and prompts further examination of the work. Because of the emotional response the work provokes, it qualifies as good art, and it does so through the subjective nature of perception. Furthermore, consider the melting clocks of Salvador Dalí. These also elicit an emotional response, because normal clocks are not melted. So in this way, his art also plays off of our subjective perception.

Whereas art manipulates our emotions, and thus benefits from subjective perception, science deals with the real world, and thus is adversely affected by subjective perception. If a scientific theory is to be applicable, it must be applicable to every person or thing it applies to, and not just in the mind of the individual as in art. Perception can be a great detriment to science because of problems in perceiving, indistinct communication, erroneous emotional drives, and flawed paths of thought. The first important principle in understanding how perception affects science is understanding how we perceive. As an example, consider the aforementioned example of the speed of sound, 340.29 m/s. In order to use sound in scientific experiments, it is necessary to account for this speed in calculations. This, of course, is only one example of how problems in the nature of perception affect science, but the idea is the same throughout. It is necessary to eliminate problems from the nature of perception to perform good science, otherwise the nature of perception will serve as an impediment to science. Language also can be an impediment to science. If it is necessary for a solution to reach a certain shade of blueish-green in order for a certain measurement to be made, a scientist cannot simply depend on propositional perception as a source for knowledge. Instead, he needs specific measurements, perhaps what shade the solution is on a spectrometer, in order to conduct good science. It is fairly easy to eliminate problems with the nature of perception and language as it relates to science, but emotional drives and flawed paths of thought are more difficult to resolve. Scientists are human, and as such have certain core emotional drives. One is Nietzsche's idea of will to power. If a certain theory benefits a scientist, that scientist will naturally be more inclined to accept that theory. This goes back to the seeing-as theory of perception. Along the same lines, practically every metaphysical philosopher at least considers the origin of life in their philosophies, and many focus on it exclusively. Scientists also are inclined to search for this answer. For this reason, the emotional drive and thought path of attempting to find the answer to this question may lead some scientists to fall into subjectivism, which is certainly not good science. Ultimately, scientists must be pragmatists. They must reject the theory of induction in order to conduct good science, and they must attempt to limit the impact of perception on their theories.

The subjective nature of perception is not merely an advantage for artists, it is a requirement for them. Without subjective perception in language, emotion, and reason, art would not meet one of its key requirements of evoking an emotional response due to the ability to be personally interpreted. On the other hand, science must not be subjective, and this is hindered by subjective perception. It is fairly easy to compensate for problems in the nature of perception and language, but more difficult to deal with problems of emotion and reason in science. Overall, it is clear that good science requires eliminating as much subjectivity as possible from experiments and theories.