March 20, 2007
The Artist and The Scientist
Recently there is a growing consensus that more attention should be placed on mathamatics and the sciences to the detriment of the arts. Now if the purpose of this shift in concentration is due to the idea that mathamatics and the sciences are somehow superior to artistic endevors, then the powers that be are sadly mistaken. I am neither cognisant in the sciences nor mathamatics but I find them to have similar ways of dealing with the unknown world as practices such as writing and painting. For those aspects that have been institutionalized in both sciences and the arts, the ways of thinking may seen quite different due to different standardization practices. For example an editor for a poetry magazine uses different templates than an editor for a science magazine. This may seem trivial but if the analogy is extended, then the sciences and the arts appear to be polar opposites. The sciences are somehow more credible since they advance our material existance; material's are quantifiable and so can be measured for advancement. The credibility of the arts come into disrepute for the precise opposite reasons that are given for the credibility of the sciences; metaphysics and experiences are qualities that cannot be measured and so progress and advancement cannot be ascertained. However, when both scientists and artists peer into the unknown they are each dealing with the same issue, that being "what is out there." At this point both individuals are creating rules and regulations in order to understand the unknown world; these rules and regulations will later be codefied and standardized but they are not inclusive of the scientist and artist. The courage and dedication of both types of individuals must be extremely strong and their confidence unshakeable. Here there is no difference between artist and scientist because here the artist becomes the scientist and the scientis becomes an artist. So to the powers that be I would argue, that both modes of thinking are necessary for the advancement of our species. Our complicated world is made up of both quantities and qualities both of which need exploring and analysis if they are to be understood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where does religion fit into this Science-Art continuum? Also, all sciences and art are not created equal. The social sciences, for instance, seem to have less credibility than more concrete, "physical" sciences..
I believe that relegion is science without the need for evidence or proof and therefore not science. Relegion is the outcome of the logic of fear coupled with emotion; this may appear to be art and by my simple definition it can be cosidered art but than it has no claim to moral superiority over others. For example the impressionists never claimed to have a moral high ground over the classicits. There are many people who read religious texts as simply literature, a perspective that I endorse.
Social Sciences is a more complicated issue. Social Sciences is where the definition of Art and Sciences meet so therefore these area's share qualities of both. For example Sociology is the study of people in communities or particular environments; communities can be definied and quantified where as the people of the communities are built of qualities as well as quantities and therefore cannot be simply quantified. The qualitative aspect of the community would, in my untutored opinion, be better described by art rather than science.
Post a Comment