Page 2 of 2
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 10:59 am
by Jan Sand
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.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 2:18 pm
by -1-
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.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 3:44 pm
by ThomasHobbes
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.
But there is a valid distinction.
You can't understand the Mona Lisa by knowing the chemical constituents of the paint and canvas.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 4:08 pm
by kordofany
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.
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.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 4:32 pm
by Jan Sand
There is no need to presume that many of the elements individually that comprise a work of art must be accepted as the total effect of any piece. I did not deny that emotion can be one of the elements of a particular piece. One cannot dismiss the emotion of a Playboy centerfold but whether that is art must be carefully considered although not necessarily denied. I doubt there would be total consensus as to precisely what emotion is aroused in the Mona Lisa although it is not likely to be the same one as Brancusi's Fish or his Bird in Space. I feel quite emotional over Einstein's concepts of time and space and the efforts and technology involved In astronauts walking on the Moon. Undoubtedly some of Escher's efforts to manipulate the odd tricks of perception are both art and science. Magritte's Ceci n'est pas une pipe is a joke. a point of scientific perception, and art and both engineering and architecture cannot be separated. The wonderful simplicity of F=MA of Newton is emotionally delightful and can be considered as art mathematically. Just because language offers words that can be assumed to separate categories does not mean that one concept or object or effort fits several categories. I am fond of the tesseract as both four dimensional geometry and an intriguing sculpture and the mobius strip and Klein bottle also demonstrates similar qualities.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 5:13 pm
by ThomasHobbes
In the above examples:
Scientists are describing the universe.
Artists are commenting on the human condition.
When you stare into the night sky you are not conceiving art.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 5:34 pm
by Jan Sand
Even scientists have only the vaguest idea about what the universe may be. Only about 10 percent of the universe is visible matter and whatever may be happening in the center of black holes that are at the center of the billions of galaxies is not even mathematically theorized although we have lots of guesses. So we use our imaginations to guess and all those guesses are art.The mind is a guessing machine and anybody who keeps tabs on the rapid advances of science is well aware that our guesses go obsolete at regular intervals.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 10:01 pm
by -1-
Art is communication, expression. The medium is the message.
Science communicates purely reason. The medium is only a transfer method.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 10:10 pm
by -1-
One can also argue pro and con whether everything beautiful is art or not. I cry when I visit Niagara Falls. It invokes a strong emotion in me, but it's not art, because it is not something communicated to me.
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?
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 4th, 2018, 12:29 am
by Jan Sand
Since the subject of beauty keeps arising in this discussion it should be mentioned that great art is not always concerned with beauty. The works of the British artist Bacon and those of Hieronymus Bosch are riveting great art and completely horrifying. The film "2001" that never reveals the actual beings of frightfully superior intellect that supposedly created mankind but only shows some of their creations is great art as is the Jewish concept of a God that can never be pictured but whose powers can only be demonstrated by their effects is of the same order of art. Art, like science, searches deeply into possible realities and demonstrates, not only the extents but also the limits of human perception. Each one of us creates a personal reality which most of us accept as the real world but we were created by evolutionary possibilities and necessities for survival and reproduction and a bat or a bumblebee or the nine brained octopus each creates their own reality to maintain and navigate and live in different realities, It is these realities that both art and science explore and try to convey to people who want to know. But the real reality is far more complex and vast than any brain can even approach, not to speak of containment. A flower or a snowflake or a sunset or the Grand Canyon has nothing to do with beauty in their construction. They fulfill demands of structure and utility and if our mind invests beauty then that is merely a product of our minds in trying to assemble patterns that we can deal with the immense unknown.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 4th, 2018, 12:52 am
by TheConsciousNarrator
no because geometry is intelligence because everything is composed of intelligence
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 4th, 2018, 8:39 pm
by Jan Sand
A mind does not operate with totalities because totality is far too complex an integration of unknowns so we use our senses to abstract sensory patterns that we can categorize and manipulate. Mathematics is a collection of abstracts which arrange within strict rules so that their interactions have regular relationships which match relationships we can recognize in the fragments of reality which we infer from our sensory inputs. But there are many kinds of geometry of different kinds of surfaces and these are all cultural creations. Squares and circles and other geometric forms do not exist as such in reality. They are human creations to be used as recognizable templates into which partial realities can be fitted. But these shapes or patterns can be also admired as beautiful in themselves. Painters such as Ben Nicholson and Piet Mondrian work directly with geometries as art objects and take inferences to reality for emotional force.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 4th, 2018, 11:21 pm
by Jan Sand
Intelligence is a very vague category which deals with how the mind examines sensory input and uses it to construct pattern relationships. The mind does not sense reality, it senses the way its sensory input is stimulated by reality and it uses that data to construct a simplified structure which it calls reality.
Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?
Posted: June 5th, 2018, 4:21 am
by Jan Sand
There is a very important and rather long article at
http://bostonreview.net/science-nature- ... eat-reason which pursues in depth the basic scientific directions of science and rather interestingly indicates the alignment of science with the somewhat arbitrary philosophies underlying the cultures normally associated with art. It reviews two books investigating how the most fundamental assumptions of physics upon which even associated sciences and especially linguistics can be led astray by traditional assumptions going back to ancient and more recent philosophies and also is deeply involved with the fundamental processes of mental mechanics.