Why is it that Communicating (effectively), is usually called an Art and not a Science?
Art stands for anything that is creative and comes from the heart, and not the mind (which is where science would come from). Science is purely technical, reason based and result oriented and has nothing to do with the heart (unless it concerns medical science) or Art 🙂
I would think that communicating effectively is both an art and a science.
When we try and communicate with someone (say, this article as an example) –
- There has to be a topic,
- There has to be structure, and
- There has to be content and an essence
That’s the science piece of it.
This is only 30% of the whole aspect, and the remaining 70% depends on how you deliver this (which is where the art comes in).
To hone your art and be able to deliver the message with greater impact, you need to be aware of certain subtleties (of course this would also depend on the media – written or face to face):
- Do you know your audience <their background, profiles>
- Do you know what you want to communicate <do you understand your topic and are well prepared>
- Why would somebody want to listen to you <will this help address their problems / needs>
- Is there a better way of doing this / saying this <can I improve and how>
This is where your creative side must step in / be pulled in.
If you can address all the 4 questions with confidence and can add more than a wee bit of a creative approach† to your overall delivery style, then you may just about have earned the right to communicate with someone.
Execution should not be that big a problem then. And as they say, practice makes perfect, so will your art and science of communicating, the more you indulge 🙂
†Unfortunately, till date, we do not know how to create creativity, unless it happens, so creativity cannot be taught / learnt.