Art or science?

[Blue_vision]

Umm, why did you quote me as saying that? I never posted that. This is who you want to speak to.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.261325.9855074

I have no idea how that happened M'bad

Always a mature way to handle a debate.

Did I ever say that science is stupid and shouldn't exist? No. I'm just saying that the things that truly make people happy are, for the most part, "arts," and I would prefer a society that had arts but no science over a society that had science without art.

It might just be me but it would be hard to be happy when you're dieing at 35 from an excruciating illness that science can prevent, or starving because you don't have science to preserve your food.

Sure, I could be dying from a terrible illness without science. But I think I'd be happier to life a fulfilling life aided by wonderful art and have it end at 35, rather than have an art-less life and live to be 80 or something.

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

ars sine scientia nihil est

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[WeOwnTheSky]

I think both are essentially linked, and one is not more important than the other. I talked to my orthopedic surgeon about why he does what he does, and he sees the human body as a piece of art, rather than bones and blood and tissue. Art is science, and science is art. You can't have one without the other.

Also, you said we wouldn't be here without science, but I don't think we would be here without art either. I see love as an art, music is an art, color, passion, all these other things that inspire and drive us to do things. We may be here by scientific methods, but we are alive for art.

 

[lacktheknack]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/shark_shirt_300.png

Now that that's out of the way, I'm gonna have to say that I often prefer art classes to science classes, art books to science books, and prefer good music to university lectures. So clearly I am gonna have to choose art.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00680/sistine-chapel-404_680767c.jpg

 

[M Rotter]

I dont think theyre mutually exclusive. and why rate them?

 

[zehydra]

Science is important for survival
Art is important to happiness

"What's the point in living if you can't feel alive?"

 

[sora91111]

They are equally important. Without art there's no advancement in culture, and without science there's advancement in technology. Sometimes the two go hand and hand look at Leonardo da Vinci. He was an artist and scientist.

 

[lacktheknack]

Art never created an airplane.

http://www.shaastra.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/leonardo-da-vinci-flying-machine.jpg[/img]

Da Vinci's flying machine, inspiration for the modern airplane, conceptualized and drawn in the sixteen hundreds.

Try again?

 

[Kargathia]

I think the most apt would be to compare it to yin and yang, with art being yin, and science being yang.

Most modern artistic mediums wouldn't exist without science, but - just as importantly - without art, science wouldn't have had the imagination to start looking for a cure to that disease in the first place.

It might just be me but it would be hard to be happy when you're dieing at 35 from an excruciating illness that science can prevent, or starving because you don't have science to preserve your food.

That or you'd end up in some post-apocalyptic waste land caused by science, and you'd die age 35 because of radiation science caused.

 

[Dirkie]

Art never created an airplane.

http://www.shaastra.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/leonardo-da-vinci-flying-machine.jpg[/img]

Da Vinci's flying machine, inspiration for the modern airplane, conceptualized and drawn in the sixteen hundreds.

Try again?

You beat me with that, but Leonardo did more than just the "bird" he also thought of an airscrew/helicopter as well.
That man was Art and Science combined, and made it work. The Mona Lisa is still on display, and a while back on the discovery channel they recreated one of his war machines.
I don't think one can go without the other, art for the inspiration and science to make it happen.

 

[gl1koz3]

The fact that we are in these forums is like SCIENCE:9999999 ART:1

 

[Patton662]

As much as I love art it won't cure cancer or end world hunger.

 

[lacktheknack]

The fact that we are in these forums is like SCIENCE:9999999 ART:1

Apparently, it's actually 95/23, which surprises me.

 

[Anarchemitis]

They are of equal importance.

 

[RAMBO22]

Science

Science is oftentimes as beautiful or even more beautiful than art.

Art is never as complex or beneficial as (modern) science, in my opinion.

Art can show you the appearance of man in a way that's aesthetically pleasing, science tell you why and how man looks that way.

 

[Daniel Laeben-Rosen]

Now, I'm not voting because it's not a binary question as far as I'm concerned.
Both are just as important for us, and both are reliant on eachother.

For instance, I'm currently studying Lithography. A graphical art-form and printing-method.
The method in question having been invented by Alois Sennefelder around 1796. Sennefelder was a playwrighter who was frustrated that no publisher at the time could see his own perceived greatness(he was a pretty bad writer) so he decided to publish his plays by himself.
A printing-press at the time(dealing with copper or woodblock) was crazy-expensive but since he knew abit of chemistry... we got Lithography.
That's the real short version.

But my point is that art fuels science which in turn fuels art.
Just look at some of our greatest works of architecture.
Art thought it up, science showed how to execute it.

"What is art?" has been a long debate ever since we created The Artist. I'm not gonna get into it right now but for centuries "artist" ment "guy who knows what he's doing".
Hence "artisan".

So frankly... I'm not voting. Because we need both, and they need each other.

 

[Xanian]

Psychology...so technically I pursue one of those careers in between. Sure...you can go the neurology route, which is more or less the "harder" part of the practice, but even that requires some creative thinking and idea making as we try to interpret thought itself from blips on a map. It's (so far) impossible to pick out the movements of creativity in the mind.

On the other hand, therapy (which is more the art) requires a lot of empathy and understanding. You have to be willing to explore and understand the human condition with someone to effectively do your job. If you limit the interaction just to a scientific calculation of symptoms, you alienate your patient.

I'm interested in cognitive research on adolescent learning...literally interpreting how adolescents think and feel about their curriculum and what peaks their interest. This is next to impossible to do without some form of sympathetic observation and without acknowledging the cultural background of the person, which may include any number of arts to evaluate. Similarly, you do it a disservice by not cataloging and evaluating it on a quantitative level...balancing and equating interaction and curricula to reach the larger populous with the information we want them to learn.

Really...I need both to do my job, people.

Edit: Also...what is this "happiness" business everyone is talking about? Art is also used to express great sadness, anger, frustration...it is essentially a balm to our wounds in certain conditions. That's why there are a lot of art therapy programs. Art expresses emotion in a way that an inventory can't, and gives a nice view of the "Little Black Box" of the human mind.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

Without wanting to offend but seriously thats just so....well.....wrong. Lets see:

Always a mature way to handle a debate.

Did I ever say that science is stupid and shouldn't exist? No. I'm just saying that the things that truly make people happy are, for the most part, "arts," and I would prefer a society that had arts but no science over a society that had science without art.

Fair enough. Apologies for misunderstanding you there.

You did, however, make some obvious mistakes in the statement I quoted - The next time, be more precise in the wording you choose to use. I'am pretty sure someone else could have understood it as I have...

And to warn you beforehand:

...yeah bio mechanics is cool, as is cybernetics. But it's not as much a necessity as art is. And houses and transportation don't need any improvements at all.

This statement is also predestined to be torn apart with the same arguments I made. The next time, please state explicitly that you mean this in the way you described and obviously with consumerism in mind...

 

[MoNKeyYy]

Well you asked 2 very different questions there. If the question is "Which is more important" then the answer is science. If the question is "Which would I rather pursue" then the answer is arts.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i always saw it like this:

Science is an Art
and
Art is a Science