A little historical tidbit. It was the pythagoreans who first made the first conclusive observations concerning the distance of one tone to another within a musical piece, and the satisfaction that it brought to the listener.
Art or science?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There was a briliant period in Renaissance whre both collaborated immensely.
This current cultural separation of them has only hurt society to an extent and the art world even more so, what with its current inability to define itself outside of the introspective and nigh-insane point of view of its authors.
This is an incredibly false dichotomy, even with examples like the Allosphere [http://www.allosphere.ucsb.edu/index.php] research facility, an pavillion built by both artists and scientists [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joann_kuchera_morin_tours_the_allosphere.html] to project CGI and sounds.
Very few carry a sinergystic view of both like this:
Those same undisciplined non-students who made a mission of destroying the term "art" to open way for their insane ramblings and meaningless works.
Hence, there are quite a few people who truly believe this word means nothing:
This current cultural separation of them has only hurt society to an extent and the art world even more so, what with its current inability to define itself outside of the introspective and nigh-insane point of view of its authors.
This is an incredibly false dichotomy, even with examples like the Allosphere [http://www.allosphere.ucsb.edu/index.php] research facility, an pavillion built by both artists and scientists [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joann_kuchera_morin_tours_the_allosphere.html] to project CGI and sounds.
Very few carry a sinergystic view of both like this:
Most of society was simply infected by undisciplined artists of the 20th Century who acquired no real grasp of the path of knowledge traveled by the truly modern artists.AugustFall said:
Those same undisciplined non-students who made a mission of destroying the term "art" to open way for their insane ramblings and meaningless works.
Hence, there are quite a few people who truly believe this word means nothing:
Again, Science and Art used to go hand in hand in Renaissance. Sacrifice the term "art" and we would have remained in the so-called "Dark Ages", a term that is actually largely discredited by historians nowadays.Squilookle said:
I hope this wasn't completely serious. Mythbusters have a very flawed scientific method, so much so that I would call it less science, and more having fun while acting retarded, which is still awesome.LifeCharacter said:
OT: Science, science helps us understand the truth of the world around us. Art just entertains us, and ask any 4 year old, a cardboard box will usually do the trick. We can entertain ourselves with the simplest of things, but the same cannot be said about understanding the world around us as we do today. Science all the way.
... I believe art is a science and science is an art.
Take that you people who think these things are mutually exclusive.
Take that you people who think these things are mutually exclusive.
I think I couldn't survive without either. Me being a fiction writer, I should be jumping on the art bandwagon, but science helps us have a better quality of life, it makes us smarter about the world we inhabit, and fuels our imagination in relms of possibility. See the works of HG Wells as an example (time machines, invisible people, aliens etc.) or even Flatland (a whole world based in geometry!)
Science cannot exist without the imagination. Art, a representation of our imaginations, cannot exist without science.
Science cannot exist without the imagination. Art, a representation of our imaginations, cannot exist without science.
And again- art is just a term. As is the Dark Ages. I couldn't care less what historians think it should be called. It's still a period of almost zero technological progress. I also couldn't care less how they grouped names together in the Renaissance. Doesn't mean squat to this debate.Ericb said:
stupid question, our society needs both, art stops us living in a dystopian 1984esc shitbreak of a world and science stops us catching cholera and gets us to work in the morning. you've got to have balance.
Although if I really had to choose; science (I really like not having cholera.)
Although if I really had to choose; science (I really like not having cholera.)
Blue_vision said:"I don't agree with your opinion so I assume that you're uneducated"?zhoominator said:You've obviously never studied a science subject thenBlue_vision said:.
Yes, I've studied science. And while I get a kick out of the insanity of quantum mechanics or the awesome moment when I realized what light actually was, I still far prefer music or a good movie.
Not to mention that science doesn't really have anywhere to go anymore for the average populace. I'm not going to tell scientists that they should stop working (really, they shouldn't! It's awesome stuff that they do for the scientific community and indirectly help arts and influence philosophy,) but aside from the few diseases that we have left, there's not much that technology can do to legitimately improve human lifestyles. More, better arts though? It could do wonders.
Sorry, but that is an uneducated perspective. Medical science is one SMALL aspect of the sciences, and even then, germs, viruses, diseases, etc, an even smaller group.
Space travel? Fusion power? Robotics? Chemical engineering? Biological Engineering? Altering the human genome alone has potential to revolutionise what it means to be human.
I don't mean to be rude, but again, it's unfortunate that you feel that way.
Science is more important, but art is still absolutely important. Science furthers our understanding of our world and our universe, whereas art furthers our understanding of ourselves, and each other.
Artists probably aren't going to discover the cure for cancer or solve the energy crisis, but scientists aren't the first in line fostering social evolution, and they probably aren't writing the songs that help us all get laid.
Seriously though, there's a surprising amount of contempt for art in this thread. Isn't this the forum of an online periodical dealing mostly in coverage of an entertainment medium? A medium that combines the efforts of science (computer engineering) and art (design, writing, music, etc)? A relatively young medium that is still struggling with its identity and whether or not it can be considered a viable form for artistic expression? I wasn't expecting to find any "art is stupid, and anyone who prefers it to science is an idiot" around these parts.
Don't forget, science is important, but it's also generally pretty complicated. Art is much more accessible.
Personally, I like it best when science and art work together and give us things like... well, video games.
Artists probably aren't going to discover the cure for cancer or solve the energy crisis, but scientists aren't the first in line fostering social evolution, and they probably aren't writing the songs that help us all get laid.
Seriously though, there's a surprising amount of contempt for art in this thread. Isn't this the forum of an online periodical dealing mostly in coverage of an entertainment medium? A medium that combines the efforts of science (computer engineering) and art (design, writing, music, etc)? A relatively young medium that is still struggling with its identity and whether or not it can be considered a viable form for artistic expression? I wasn't expecting to find any "art is stupid, and anyone who prefers it to science is an idiot" around these parts.
Don't forget, science is important, but it's also generally pretty complicated. Art is much more accessible.
Personally, I like it best when science and art work together and give us things like... well, video games.
The chemistry of the ink that the cavemen used; what was it made of, and how was it preserved for so long? Please explain that without using science.interspark said:
Circuit experiment: you've never thought of how electricity works, how it flows and interacts with different mediums, as art?
"Dornach uesci", CAPTCHA? And why the accent above the 'o'?
Well, science is just the thing that contains facts we got with the scientific method of finding answers. In other words, we actually don't need to attribute many "scientific" discoveries to science.
Art on the other hand is the representation of any idea in a special way, which in itself makes it more qualified to take the place of the word science.
Where would we be without science? About 70 years ago.
Where would we be without art? ... Colosseum. Really, art, whether music, visual, etc. has always been what entertained people. (Other than mindless violence and... you know.)
Art on the other hand is the representation of any idea in a special way, which in itself makes it more qualified to take the place of the word science.
Where would we be without science? About 70 years ago.
Where would we be without art? ... Colosseum. Really, art, whether music, visual, etc. has always been what entertained people. (Other than mindless violence and... you know.)
If you just mean art as in pictures of stuff and installations then science all the way.
However if you're defining art broadly then I'd be at a loss. I couldn't live without music, but then again we wouldn't be able to get electric guitars without science, so that would be lame. I guess I'd still have to pick art, and I'd have to get into Bach
Also, how broadly are you defining science? If you mean the scientific method then my answer above would apply, but if you're defining science more broadly as 'learning how things work and applying that knowledge' then we wouldn't be able to get any instruments of any kind, so it would all be for naught if I picked art. So I'd have to pick science, and live in a deeply depressing world.
However if you're defining art broadly then I'd be at a loss. I couldn't live without music, but then again we wouldn't be able to get electric guitars without science, so that would be lame. I guess I'd still have to pick art, and I'd have to get into Bach
Also, how broadly are you defining science? If you mean the scientific method then my answer above would apply, but if you're defining science more broadly as 'learning how things work and applying that knowledge' then we wouldn't be able to get any instruments of any kind, so it would all be for naught if I picked art. So I'd have to pick science, and live in a deeply depressing world.
Again, all those things are cool, but they speak little to the human soul. I'm personally finding it unfortunate that you don't seem to appreciate the value of art and creativity. How does space travel, fusion, robotics, or chemical or biological engineering make you a happier person?martin said:
I only highlighted Medicine and Biology because they do have the ability to bring true happiness in giving a life or relieving pain on a wide scale. And while it's a tough call, I'd say that arts are better. If there's an analogue, I'd say I'd rather live in 16th century Florence or 11th century Baghdad than I would as a middle class man in Shanghai at the height of the cultural revolution, if that paints any better a picture.