Page 1 of 2

Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
by kordofany
Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?: Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically, while science is to discover the existence and expression of it directly.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 6th, 2018, 1:54 am
by LuckyR
Are you kind of saying that art is fiction and science is non-fiction yet both are literature?

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 6th, 2018, 2:44 am
by kordofany
LuckyR wrote:
May 6th, 2018, 1:54 am
Are you kind of saying that art is fiction and science is non-fiction yet both are literature?
Fiction is also part of our existential component

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 19th, 2018, 4:57 pm
by Jan Sand
It is interesting to look into the relationship between theoretical science and fiction. There are theories that deal with multidimensional reality such as brane theory which fit nicely into the possibilities of other accepted concepts of reality but require confirmation through observation which is not currently possible. Does this fit into the category of fiction or non-fiction? Many of the theoretical proposals I had read of as a child back in the 1930-s have been confirmed recently such as the existence of extra-solar planets. is this fiction or non-fiction? My point is that there is not a clear cut division.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 19th, 2018, 6:03 pm
by ThomasHobbes
kordofany wrote:
May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically,
What do you mean "this".

Art does not need a purpose or goal. It does not necessarily discover. Art is about expression.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 19th, 2018, 7:06 pm
by kordofany
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 19th, 2018, 6:03 pm
kordofany wrote:
May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically,
What do you mean "this".

Art does not need a purpose or goal. It does not necessarily discover. Art is about expression.
Expression is also purpose!

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 20th, 2018, 8:06 am
by ThomasHobbes
kordofany wrote:
May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically,
"THIS" what?

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 20th, 2018, 5:53 pm
by kordofany
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 20th, 2018, 8:06 am
kordofany wrote:
May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically,
"THIS" what?
discovery

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 21st, 2018, 4:54 pm
by ThomasHobbes
kordofany wrote:
May 20th, 2018, 5:53 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 20th, 2018, 8:06 am

"THIS" what?
discovery
Your sentence fails to parse.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: May 23rd, 2018, 8:27 pm
by -1-
kordofany wrote:
May 5th, 2018, 10:43 am
Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?: Art is to discover the existence and expression of this discovery symbolically, while science is to discover the existence and expression of it directly.
You can express something symbolically, but can you discover it symbolically? And most scientific facts are not directly noted, but via a lot of manipulation of data.

Otherwise I agree.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: June 2nd, 2018, 12:28 pm
by rainchild
Yes, I do agree that there is a distinction between the arts and sciences.

The arts convey features of our minds to the outside world.

The sciences convey the features of the outside world to our minds.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: June 2nd, 2018, 1:01 pm
by Jan Sand
rainchild wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 12:28 pm
Yes, I do agree that there is a distinction between the arts and sciences.

The arts convey features of our minds to the outside world.

The sciences convey the features of the outside world to our minds.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The only relationship the mind has with whatever it may be that creates the sensory impulses is those impulses themselves. They have patterns that are formed by the relationships of the sensory apparatus with outside energies of various types. Those impulses carry the information of what is going on in the sensory apparatus which is a quite special effect of those energies. So what the mind knows is the status of the sensory apparatus and can only guess at what might have cause those reactions. It is most likely something related to the external energies but a different sensory apparatus would have a different category of reactions. Science, like art, invents pattern relationships to explain those energy states of its sensory apparatus so science is equally inventive as art and those relationships that are accepted change as more is learned and understood. The inventiveness of art can range into much more unlikely areas as those patterns can be accepted as fantasies whereas scientific inventions must cohere to the bulk of patterns already found acceptable. "Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions." Albert Einstein

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: June 2nd, 2018, 9:15 pm
by -1-
rainchild wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 12:28 pm
Yes, I do agree that there is a distinction between the arts and sciences.

The arts convey features of our minds to the outside world.

The sciences convey the features of the outside world to our minds.
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.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: June 2nd, 2018, 10:03 pm
by Jan Sand
You can look at a clock and learn the position of its hands but one must not be eager to decide the mind of a god or the inclinations of the cosmos for there is always somewhere where the clock is right and also where the clock is wrong. All a clock can do is tell you where its hands may be. Thus with science and art. At rare times an artist can scratch a symbol on he wall or throw paint in the air and where it lands is a dragon or a pretty girl or a frog. A scientist can play with infinity or sneeze in symphonies of logical conclusions but what he creates is merely a pattern of circuses where an endless parade of clowns pouring from a Volkswagen whispers funny nonsense and kicks each other in the ass but truth exists only until the lion tamer is finally gulped down by a lion who cannot any more stand the nonsense. And finally the buttered popcorn is consumed. The universe always looks down with a smile at artists and scientists who construct monuments out of marshmallows and chocolate covered raisins . Then the crows move in and gobble it all down.

Re: Do you agree with this distinction between art and science?

Posted: June 3rd, 2018, 2:49 am
by kordofany
-1- wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 9:15 pm
rainchild wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 12:28 pm
Yes, I do agree that there is a distinction between the arts and sciences.

The arts convey features of our minds to the outside world.

The sciences convey the features of the outside world to our minds.
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?


You create art, but you don't create science.
(create) Did you mean that art emerges from nothingness without the accumulation of knowledge?


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?




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?