When something only happens once, its art, when it happens twice, its science. One is studying unique phenomena, one is studying patterns and relationships. Ultimately, science seems more important, but both are essentially the same thing.
Art or science?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, as long as humans have observed patterns in nature, science has existed, so science is as old as humanity itself.Spinozaad said:
Modern science is about 400 years old, but that's a discussion for another day
Both, baby, both!
I'm educated in both areas. Would you ask DaVinci to choose between the passions?
Fuck no! Aside from the fact that he'd have told you the two aren't that far removed, he'd tell you to go fuck yourself.
Technical and creative abilities are independent of one another, but in ideal, work in unison. Typically, this is how we breed our genius minds!
I'm educated in both areas. Would you ask DaVinci to choose between the passions?
Fuck no! Aside from the fact that he'd have told you the two aren't that far removed, he'd tell you to go fuck yourself.
Technical and creative abilities are independent of one another, but in ideal, work in unison. Typically, this is how we breed our genius minds!
That definition of 'science' creates a backdoor that allows people to maintain this retarded Art Contra Science battle. When people use the word 'science', they generally use it to refer to a vaguely determined realm that ranges somewhere from 'people in white coats in labs doing... sciency things...' to the almost religious ideas of scientism and positivism.Spencer Petersen said:
You're right that people have tried to explain nature ever since they were around, but the divide between 'science' and 'art' is only about 200 years old.
Science, I think. Think about the theory of evolution, for example; its beauty surpasses that of the most intricate and elaborate painting or piece of music. Its implications delve into the human condition on a deeper level than any novel, and the study of its mechanisms combines elements of speculation, history, creation..
I chose biology because I'm not very well-versed in any other scientific field, but I'm sure the same applies across the board.
I do believe that art serves a purpose, however. As a celebration of what we have and can become, as a means of spreading ideas and of introspection on an individual and species-wide level.
I chose biology because I'm not very well-versed in any other scientific field, but I'm sure the same applies across the board.
I do believe that art serves a purpose, however. As a celebration of what we have and can become, as a means of spreading ideas and of introspection on an individual and species-wide level.
Observing phenomena in the physical world and then breaking it down into relationships and patterns is the basis of science. The white lab coat persona is just a pop culture justification, but when you really get to the heart of science its as simple as possible. Would you not consider Plato a scientist? He observed many things about his world and he sought to find relationships between them. In his time people would perform theater, and it was unique in that each story was told through subtle actions and styles of the actors, organizer, writers, investors etc, and even different in how the audience interpreted it. People here are right is saying that Da Vinci was both a scientist and an artist, but not because science was art. He was a scientist in that he observed the world and derived relationships. He saw that the human body has similar proportions in his Vitruvian Man diagram, but he used this knowledge to create art. He saw that art by definition was unique, so he utilized his own personal form with his own personal style to make the Mona Lisa, what is considered to be a representation of himself as a female.Spinozaad said:
Point is, even though in the popular culture the distinction may be stupid, it doesn't mean the argument itself has to be. Science and art are simply the difference between plurality and singularity, between 2 and 1. Art is by definition a one-time occurrence, because there will never be another being that thinks exactly like you, lives in the same environment as you, and behaves the same as you. But science is its opposite. When you mix Sodium and chlorine you will assume that they will form salt in the right circumstances, because humans have done it again and again and seen the pattern.
Because they are opposites, to lose one would result in the loss of another. Without knowing the patterns of the physical world how can we tell when something is unique?
I'm voting for art, although I'm a bit biased as I'm studying to be a filmmaker, am deep into the local theater scene, and write poetry.
I'm going to go with art. Science is cool (I mean without it this forum wouldn't exist) but I love that which is art by our own definitions.
As to which has been more important in society's progress...I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to be honest.
As to which has been more important in society's progress...I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to be honest.
My perception of the world is that everything is an art in one way or another.
Sure science has answered alot of things, but isn't the fun in the theories? We get alot more opinionated about art than science.
I think science is more important when you get right down to it but my life revolves around art and the creation of art.
Sure science has answered alot of things, but isn't the fun in the theories? We get alot more opinionated about art than science.
I think science is more important when you get right down to it but my life revolves around art and the creation of art.
My thoughts exactly!Nimcha said:Personally I see science as an art.
Other than this, though, it's really a vote of Practicality or Personality.
Video games take the science of computers to create, don't read comic books, movies take good science for CG and special effects, novels take science to print, and this website uses science to run.Island said:
To simplify my point, assuming I had the supply, ask me whether I'd rather spend an hour on the Escapist or an hour throwing frag grenades in the woods. I'd be out there in a heartbeat, science is just more fun.
I would just like to say that, aside from some people who would rather turn this detbate into an argument on the validity of terms, it's showgin quite a brighter side of this forum's posters.
That's really great.
False dichotomies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma] are very damaging to intelligent conversations, as it stimulates people to think precisely in limited binary terms.
People, arts and sciences are by-products of the human experience, don't ever forget it. They matter because they've meant a great deal to us for countless generations. There's no real separation.
As well-intentioned as it might be, the argument this topic generates is flawed.
That's really great.
Because some people like to think about the world of "this vs that", whici is much easier than to see how the brightes artistas and scientists actually imagine it, as a universe fill with most diverse colors, sounds and ultimately vibrations.MaxwellEdison said:
False dichotomies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma] are very damaging to intelligent conversations, as it stimulates people to think precisely in limited binary terms.
People, arts and sciences are by-products of the human experience, don't ever forget it. They matter because they've meant a great deal to us for countless generations. There's no real separation.
As well-intentioned as it might be, the argument this topic generates is flawed.
