From what I understood from the article, Leggett is saying that not only do artists and scientists need each other more than ever in innovative projects, but that the lines between what it means to be an artist compared to a scientist are being blurred. There are some pros to be had with this type of collaboration. For one, artists can provide scientists with a different type of learning approach. I find that a lot of artists are “tinkerers” and tend to learn as they go, whereas a lot of scientists are problem solvers and like to have a set, organized plan. With these two mindsets working together, there can be both a set, organized plan as well as malleability to change the way the plan is.
There are, however, cons to this approach as well. Some projects I believe need to be purely scientifically driven. With emerging technologies especially, I believe it’s more important for scientists to focus rather than artists. Scientists have the skill set to innovate new technologies and help bring them to the consumer market, where a lot of artists then take it and turn it into a medium. If both scientists and artists are working together on an emerging technology the process of delivering that technology to consumers could be slowed down and tampered with. In short, I believe scientists must first focus on bringing a technology to the market, where artists can then turn it into a medium with mass appeal. From that point it makes the most sense for the two types of professions to work together to further that technology.