Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
kordofany wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2018, 2:49 am-1- wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2018, 9:15 pm
Yes.
Art is an expression, science is learning.
You create art, but you don't create science.
You can learn science, but you can't learn to be an artist.
With art you speak with and to emotions and feelings and moods; science can only be communicated with the intellect.Art is an expression, science is learning.
-You mean that art does not rely on prior experiences?
No, I did not mean that. You need to learn technique, and mainly, life. You need intution, which comes with experience. Your OUTPUT, your art, is an expression; many paths lead or can lead to express yourself.You create art, but you don't create science.
(create) Did you mean that art emerges from nothingness without the accumulation of knowledge?
No. No creation happens the way you suggest, kordofany. I don't think I suggested that, but now that you point-blank ask that, my answer is no, art does not emerge from nothingness. That'd be absurd to say. Art emerges from that part of the mind that communicates on the level of emotions.You can learn science, but you can't learn to be an artist.
Did you mean that art colleges are useless? Or do you mean the creative artist specifically?
Art colleges are not useless. They teach technique and analysis and theory very well. But they can't teach you to express your emotions.With art you speak with and to emotions and feelings and moods; science can only be communicated with the intellect.
- Did you mean that the expression of emotions and moods across art does not need intelligence?
No, I did not mean that. I did not even say that. I did not say "with art you speak with and to emotions, without the use of intelligence whatsoever." I did not say that; you only read it that way.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
But there is a valid distinction.Jan Sand wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2018, 10:59 am As an artist who has been in the field for about 88 years and dealt with many of the elements of art I have used mood and and emotion and a huge amount of research into culture, a vast experimentation with materials and pigments and methods and much experimentation with perception and attitudes to many of the combinations of all the aspects plus explorations into how other artists and non-artists get involved with these basics. There is also much science and technology involved with these dynamics including the latest digital devices available. The human mind is crammed with multitudes of different intentions and involve both science and art.
You can't understand the Mona Lisa by knowing the chemical constituents of the paint and canvas.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
- Contact:
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
I think I must make an important point: art can not be defined because we can not limit its characteristics. Everything can be art. Religion can be an art. The car industry can be an art, so chemistry was called the art of chemistry. We can use all elements of material and moral assets in the process of creation. This is my perception that art is boundless.Jan Sand wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2018, 10:59 am As an artist who has been in the field for about 88 years and dealt with many of the elements of art I have used mood and and emotion and a huge amount of research into culture, a vast experimentation with materials and pigments and methods and much experimentation with perception and attitudes to many of the combinations of all the aspects plus explorations into how other artists and non-artists get involved with these basics. There is also much science and technology involved with these dynamics including the latest digital devices available. The human mind is crammed with multitudes of different intentions and involve both science and art.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Scientists are describing the universe.
Artists are commenting on the human condition.
When you stare into the night sky you are not conceiving art.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Science communicates purely reason. The medium is only a transfer method.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
I like to look at beautiful sunrises. Again, it's not something communicated; it is just beautiful.
The night sky is frightening to me.
The depths of waters are frightening to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
My literature teachers in high school read up some works by writers. As they read, they tried to invoke the same or some emotions as they felt it. But they were not artists; the writer was the artist. So there is a lot of emotionally communicated stuff that has emotions as the content of their message, and yet they are not art. They are art transference.
Another example of this is art books with photo reproductions of art.
-------------------------------
Art is a one-way street, with a source and a sink (to borrow terms from logistics.) The source is the artist: he wishes to let his feelings be known to others. Others, the sinks, or perceivers, the end receivers of the product, may resonate with the art the same way as the artist intended the piece to resonate in others. Or the sink may resonate with different considerations from what had been intended by the source. Or the sink may not at all resonate.
What is art? If nobody resonates with the works, not at all, is it still art, because the artist, the source, intended to say something with it?
----------------------------------
There have been times when art was created without any sinks resonating with it. Then, at one point, the coin dropped, so to speak, and everyone saw beauty and feeling and art in the art that they had earlier denounced as ugly non-art.
What gives?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
- TheConsciousNarrator
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: June 3rd, 2018, 11:51 pm
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023