Art or science?

[Lem0nade Inlay]

Art. Art is fun, relaxing etc.

Science? Yeah it's good at saving lives, advancing culture. But I don't really care about advancing the human race to be quite honest. We're overpopulated and destroying everything with Science. I'm not even a vegetarian, and I suck at most "classical" art forms (painting, drawing etc.) but honestly, I enjoy it more than Science.

 

[Plazmatic]

Now, which one do you think has a more importance in this world?
For without science, sure we would't be here, but where would we be without art?
So, which one would you pursue personally and why?

funny how OP tries to make this into a super philosophical an thought provoking thread, when in reality he has no Idea what he's talking about and the two cant possibly be compared in the way he describes. art precedes science giving birth to human culture, and often goes hand and hand with science advances. Science promotes art, and art promotes science, there for you cant say one is more important than the other. They are in different fields, and virtually incomparable in the OPs sense.

 

[Kortney]

Art by a long way. But I've always been a very "arty" person.

Science can bore me.

 

[Plazmatic]

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.

any thing that can be beautiful. or is, is art... sorry but your point falls flat on its face, also no one said that science can't be art.

 

[Dorian6]

That's a tough one. I'm an actor, but also a man of science.

Art serves to hold up a mirror to humanity and cause great societal changes.

Science can tell us about the origin of our species, it can help us better understand the universe

 

[AugustFall]

Science is an art. At it's pinnacle it is using your imagination to design something that does not exist already or imagine something that does and we just don't know it. Imagination is the greatest tool of both artists and scientists.

 

[Bobbovski]

Because our current Biology is based mostly on provably false information...

Explain.

 

[tthor]

they are both important, for without one or the other, there is no innovation

 

[TheSEPH88]

Without sience we would not exist as a spieces today period.
You do realise that the simple act of making fire is sience? the crafting of tools is also sience. Without our ability to craft tools (wich is what sience is) we would be nothing more then prey to better predators.

Saying that I must also say that I would find it pointless to live in a world without art.

 

[Koroviev]

You can't have one without the other. Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof here is misplaced.

 

[thiosk]

The best scientists and artists are secretly both.

This is a photograph, and its of ferrofluids on an index card set atop seven little magnets.

 

[interspark]

Science is more awesome, I don't know about important. Science students are cooler and more down to earth than arts students. Even arts men want our science ladies, and YOU AREN'T HAVING THEM!!!

pffft! no way! artists are sexy!

 

[interspark]

art is better, scientists claim to be making life easier, but secretly it's just a way of keeping oneself busy and keeping oneself from asking philisophical questions (as the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy taught us), nah enjoying art is true happiness

 

[interspark]

You can't have one without the other. Prove me wrong.

ok, cave paintings, where's the science there? and do explain the art in the little circuit experiment everyone does in school

 

[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.

any thing that can be beautiful. or is, is art... sorry but your point falls flat on its face, also no one said that science can't be art.

I suppose you are right in some respects. What I should have endeavored to explain in my original post is that what i mean by science is is science done for science's sake, and nothing else qualifies as science, and art done for arts sake, and nothing else, is art.

Your post brought up a giant whole in this argument that I didn't give enough thought to before I posted: the ambiguities of the definitions of "science" and (especially) "art".

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I am an artist. I make films, not only to entertain but to highlight social problems ignored by mainstream media.

I love to write. I love to create. While I enjoy science, I'm clearly on art's side. Mostly because I SUCK at mathematics.

 

[Accountfailed]

Studying both physics and art, may I make a point?

what use is technical capability?(science, engineering, etc...)

without the imagination and clairvoyance to use them properly? (art, architecture, design etc...)

you cannot truly expect to create a world changing theory or an object that changes the way people fundamentally function if you don't have the ability to create the abstract concept of it in your mind, this is where I've seen many "I wanna be the guy" scientists and mathematicians fall short.
all that brain power and no compass to tell it where to go.

If you have any shred of an artistic mind in you, then cultivate it. You will reap the rewards in Science.

 

[carpathic]

People do not visit other countries to see their "science". In terms of straight effects on the world, I have to go with art.

Science is the medium, art is the message (despite what McCluhan said)

 

[MGlBlaze]

Why not both? Can't I say both?

Mythbusters has shown just how beautiful science can be, and art rarely has explosions.

Another thing; Science can be something of an art in itself, and many Arts make use of scientific concepts to make themselves appealing to us.

 

[mikev7.0]

Are those two really so different as to warrant a choice between them?

Absolutely. Science does.

More important in what way?

I pursue philosophy, which is neither one nor the other but somewhere in between. However, if choosing to pursue one or the other, I'd probably choose art. I once pursued science but found its tedious dissection of things unnecessary and exhausting. I'd probably pursue art because it would help me engage human empathy while stirring the same change in perceptions that science can.

But more important? That really depends on what method we are using to gauge that.

Actually isn't Philosophy considered the Father of Science? I thought Science grew from natural philosophy and it's a good thing others didn't find science unnecessary or exhausting or you wouldn't be able to complain about it on your computer or play your games.

Science achieves. art can only inspire.