Art and Science are the same

Great Debates
21

I wonder if perhaps the differentiation is nothing more than the cultural baggage we lay on their associations.

science = rigid, bespectacled, numerical, valuated

art = intuitive, flamboyant, careless

These two conceptualizations are of course inaccurate, but indicate the cultural word association we make when mentioning them. I got a BA in Political Science, and while much of it can be more a science, as in “a theory can be created to forecast what will happen in this situation given variables x, y and z,” there is just as much in the field that should really be called “Political Art (I’d love to start up a program at some fly-by-night school with this name),” because the variables in those situations defy the ability for science to forecast, and require intuition. Of course political actors do not move only by intuition, and to attempt to read their actions exclusively by intuition would render pretty poor results.

Did anybody follow that?

22

kuroashi, Good points. Allow me to phrase it in a yet more abtruse manner::slight_smile:

One way to divide much of learning is to seperate it into “rules-based” and “prototype-based” learning.

When we say, explicitily and consciously, that X is a member of Y because feature “a” that X has defines being Y … that is rules-based. Like John is a male because he has a penis. Straight forward linear logical thinking.

Science tends to that explicit form of categorization. But most of the time we don’t use explicit rules. We don’t say that we know that John is “happy” because he has a smile, we experience a conjuction of features (smile, eyes, tone of voice, posture, etc.) and just know.

Most learning is really “prototype-based”: we have experience with a wide variety of exemplars that are called Y, and based on that experience form a fuzzy bordered space of what would be called Y with its center being the prototype for the form. We are not explicitly aware of the rules that we use, how relatively important each aspect is, how we’d give on one if two other features are fully present … it is done without conscious thought, this simultaneous processing and weighing of multiple factors, matching how close it is to what we have in our mind as a prototypic form, and we call it “intuitive”.

Art tends to feature this so-called “intuitive” approach. IMHO, the best that Art has to offer often has even the Artist not explicitly aware of how the features are balanced, not completely explicitly aware of the model that (s)he is trying to express. Discovering and expressing the creative “model” of the subject is the same in both … but Science endevours to make the rules explicit, and Art is ahead of Science in implicitly accepting that hard rules do not exist for much of what the universe has to offer.

Go back to John and his penis, my “Science” example. What if John is XX? Is that penis still “his”? (I can give a long list of ambiguous situations if you like.)

Art enjoys these ambiguous edges of categorization; Science typically cringes.

Okay, so I’m arguing against my own op. Things just aren’t so clear-cut.
:smiley:

23

Art and science are the same in several respects, but one that stands out the most is that:

Science (actual, practical science – meaning, looking at the stars through a telescope and classifying them; something that extends beyond the classroom) deals with the personal relationship to the natural, objective world.

Art deals with the personal relationship to the human, personal world.

I hope that made sense. :frowning:

24

DSeid,
Not sure what to think about what you say: an artist isn’t “aware of how the features are balanced…not aware of the model he is trying to express.”
Its funny, because it makes sense to me if I think of say, modern art with colors and forms blurred together in a seemingly unconnected way. But if I think of Rembrandt or Beethoven and look at what they did, they seem VERY aware of what they are trying to express.

“Art is ahead of science in implicitley suggesting that hard rules do not exist for much of what the world has to offer”

There are definintely laws but, you cant’ always reduce it down to 1+2=3. Looking at how things interrelate and affect each other --that’s where some creativity is needed.

I think that part of the reason why this is hard to answer is that we seem to accept anything that calls itself art as art. Are we talking true great art here, and how it was created, or that newer modern, bent coat hanger stuff that IMHO, just ain’t art?

Ok. my brain is officially fried.

25

oops. Left out the part where I meant to say, isn 't it true that science embraces ambiguity? Without it there would be nothing left to discover.

26

Science…

Knowledge through observation, Methodology, Experimental investigation…
The scientific method brings us an objective viewpoint of the world, of its denzions and of the universe itself. It tells us how it is, even if we have never seen it, and tells us that repeatablity is its dogma. A platypus is the same creature as another platypus, though born of different parents. It shows us the world as if seen through an indifferent, emotionless computer, it is Method.

Art…

Art is many things, it is subjective beauty, usually meant to invoke an emotional or intellectual response. A painting, an Epic poem, a perfectly choreographed ballet, or just the sweet sounds of a classical piece. To me, the art in question becomes nothing more a window that allows me to see my own soul for a brief time. To others, it is detrius or unwanted noise.

Ultimately one can say art is Objective, The painting of a mountain is a physical reality, it is seen as a mountain to all. (I would hope…). The physical Art of it, the objective piece would be called a painting of a mountain. I would argue that this is not art in and of itself, I would say that Art is nothing more than the beauty behind something. And many have tried to objectively and scientifically define beauty without any sucess. (as far as I know at least)

Saying an Eagle and a mosquito are the same things because they both have “wings” does not make them the same.

I see no more evidence of science and art being the same, than I see every human being the same person because they all breathe.

27

Scientists keep testing and refining till they agree.
I’m using science to communicate with this message board.

Recently a prestigious UK art prize was awarded to an artist whose work consisted of a light going on and off. :rolleyes:
If I have a mediaeval painting it might be ‘worth’ $5,000 at auction. However if 2 or 3 art experts give their opinion that it was painted by Rembrandt, it now becomes worth $500,000. :eek:

I think Art and Science are different.

28

What I meant when I said art and science were alike is that they were alike in SOME ways, not in general. I guess I should have worded my thoughts on this better. I am NOT a pro. writer; you can probably see that.

It is hard for me to think of art and science as completely independant of each other.

They are alike in their quest for truth . That’s the measure of science and what it’s success depends on;…truth…

As for art and truth, well,…art strives for beauty, and, as Emily Dickenson put it, “the two are one” (beauty and truth).

I could say a lot more about this here, but can’t take the time.

Tell me this; will you: why do you get so philosophical (sp?) and go on and on and on , when what you are trying to say could be nutshelled in much less words?

I have a tendancy to think philosophicaly myself, but after just so many words a point must be made so anyone can understand and get something out of it; anyone adult and average in intellect.

My veiw is that if it’s worthwhile saying it can be said so all can understand. Every now and then I read a book that is fantasticaly worded intellectually-wise , but can’t go on reading it because words get in the way of meaning; if you can understand that, …and I think it’s EASY to understand.

BTW…,…what kind of people are you, anyhow,…here I tell you the meaning of life and you don’t even appreciate it! As to whether I’m being funny or not…well, I’ll let you guess.

Another btw: I was a commercial artist when I was younger, in case that means anything to you.

Dee

29

Funny tidbit of info: This was an active debate at the turn of the centuary, and is how we got the word scientist, an artist of the sciences.

30

Because this is art, man! There’s no need to stop after making a concise declaration. Call it a rose garden outside the laboratory. And how far can we stretch this similarity? That begs questions upon questions (scientifically if we dared), so this thread could go on for months. Just 'cause you figured it out enough for yourself does not mean it’s a dead issue.

Now nobody’s gonna post anymore, just my luck…

I want to clarify a bit of what I said earlier. The differentiations we make between the two do less to indicate our cultural baggage than to simply differentiate themselves from eachother (It’s not left, it’s right - How’s that for a nutshell, deeward?).

But the ramifications can be superimposed over so many situations. People have mentioned a few examples here; I mentioned politics. A film that presented this concept of the dichotomy between the two is Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man starring Johnny Depp.

Efficiency, progress, the White Man entering into the Wilderness could be taken to represent Science, and Jarmusch is not too kind in his portrayal of it. The name of the town Depp’s character arrives in is called “Machine.” He enters into the wilderness as an outlaw, because the rules were broken. In the wild, there are no rules.

Of course there are the laws of nature, but the wild is simply a setting to show system less structured by the science we apply to our lives in civilization.

Maybe I should open a thread on this film in the Cafe rather than continue on here.

31

An irresistible challenge!

Well, no it couldn’t.
Science is making observations, assessing the evidence, proposing a theory, testing it, then modifying it as often as necessary in the light of new evidence.
Most such theories will provide useful predictions and enable scientists to come up with further theories.

I’m sorry if this is not ‘romantic’ enough for you, but science is about accuracy.

Interesting thought - can you state one ‘law of nature’?

Also, how we apply scientific discoveries is sociology. Perhaps sociology is a science, but, like economics, anything that involves the behaviour of large numbers of human beings makes it hard to gather accurate observations.

Unless Hari Seldon was right…

32

Perhaps the allegory was to “technology”, the application of science to, putatively, improve society’s lot?

deeward, to wax philosophic, what is beauty? Is all that is Truth, beauty? AIDS ravaging Africa is “Truth” but it ain’t beauty to me. Is not beauty more relative than truth? The scientist in me sees beauty as that which we have found “adaptive” to note as pleasant.

33

Science for me is analogous to theory of art. It attempts to describe the rules that make the work of art tick, raise great questions, give chills down your spine, raise moral questions, etc. etc. The difference between scientists and art theorists is that scientists study the greatest work of art in the universe, which is, of course, the universe itself. (of course, calling the universe a work of art could imply an artist, or it could not, but we don’t need to go into that)

Artists create art that attempts to live up to the standards of the universe, and, of course, being human, fail, but have fun in the process. To do that, they need to have a concept (intuitive or consious) of the rules that make art great - i.e. science. This is the connection I see - you can’t be an artist without understanding art, which is science. The difference is that scientists attempt to make sense of art, while artists attempt to create new art.

34

We’ve gotten this far with no mention of Thomas Kuhn?

I’ve gotta go with the consensus argument. Sciences are generally seen as “high consensus” fields. There is relatively high agreement on what is truth, how to go about finding it, what methods should be employed, which questions are worth studying. Yes, I know not all scientists agree on everything, but when you look at all realm of human knowledge and expression, the sciences fall on the far end of the spectrum for consensus.

Art is elsewhere on that spectrum.

35

After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well.

-Albert Einstein

36

Those words by A. Einstien were the best yet on the subject wer’e talking about.

Not only in meaning but in it’s brevity and succinctity

It’s a good example of what I was refering to when I said you need’nt make a kaleidoscope of words to make a point.

By the way,…about beauty not always found in truth,well,…honesty is always beautiful. It’s not what it reveals; it’s in the ; the very fact that it’s a truth is what makes it beautiful.

Dee

37

But presumably the best artists aren’t scientists.

Look, I’m all for truth and beauty - it’s just that the scientific method doesn’t need beauty. If some scientific proof turns out to be beautiful, that’s sweet - but it’s just a coincidence.

38

I think all scientific proofs are beautiful.

39

As requested, one “law of nature:”

gravity

another:

glory is fleeting
:smiley:

Yeah, “technology” would have been a better word to use in the analogy I submitted regarding “Dead Man.” Guess I’ll have to rescind.

40

Am I the only one who stumbled in here expecting an SCA thread?
I am? Oh, OK then…
…to the OP - I believe Art and Science are two essentially different endeavours, different in intent much more than methodology or outcome. I believe the intent of Art is to invoke any of a gamut of emotional responses in the perceiver - secondhand telepathy, if you will, whether to evoke positive or negative emotions, doesn’t really signify.

While acknowledging Science’s aesthetic side (the beautiful theorem idea), I do not believe that is the primary intention of Science, rather it is the appeal to logic and reason. Any beauty is a by-product, not a neccesity. Off-hand, I can’t think of any artwork whose appeal is primarily to logic and/or reason.