I was reading Saul Bellow’s Nobel Lecture (which is the best Nobel lecture I’ve read besides Faulkner’s IMHO) and found this line to be interesting “The intelligent public is wonderfully patient with them [writers], continues to read them and endures disappointment after disappointment, waiting to hear from art what it does not hear from theology, philosophy, social theory, and what it cannot hear from pure science.”
Brackets are mine of course.
Bellow’s belief that art can convey things about the human condition that science can not is one of my beliefs as well; but it is only belief and it may only be partially true or just flat out wrong.
Is it the purpose of art to convey things about the human condition that can not be conveyed in any other way?
Is it even possible to convey things that “pure science” can’t?
And if there is nothing that “pure science” can not convey then is art simply a waste of human energy?