Hi there, I'm of a science background from university and from upbringing. I came across this lovely story about a certain genius that evolves within the human race with strange senses and appearance. He fights for the cause of art over science. This extract is quite interesting. If you find the time to read it, could you post what thoughts it brought forward in your mind?
well i dont exactly understand it all (you know me kev) but its full of interesting points. I think all i can say is science is based on theories .. which are often supported by other theories. theories come from the mind. Art also is an expression of theories and mind. Different people deal with their thoughts in different ways. The scientific, think, axknowlegde, analise and act upon it. where as i think the artistic act, look, analise THEN think. if that makes sence. maybe the artist express something first however the scientist may analise it and understand it more fully. i dunno just a stream of thoughts spured by what i understood in those 2 pages.
It's difficult to separate the two. I think of music as an example. Watch musicians play. They are creative and emotional as they are performing, yet they still have to hit all the notes in the proper way, play in tune, and so on. It's a mix of both art and science. Without the science/technology, it would sound horrible, out of tune, out of rhythm, etc. Without the art, it wouldn't be music but rather nothing more than running scales up and down according to a music theory book. A fusion of the two gives something beyond each one. .
(That’s such an interesting read; I want to read more of it! and i have babbled out a big reply because i was utterly absorbed at talking about it) Perhaps, if the would were to need balance... science balances out Art and visa versa. On one hand you have the freedom of exploration, the seemingly endless possibilities of art and then, science, the "functionally sterile". That’s not unlike what Shaggie said really, both need each other. I suppose though, some ways Shaggie is saying Art needs science to exist. I mean look at all the past artists, Leonard de Vinci an artist and an inventor. He used both forms, science in his inventions similar to Michelangelo he was a painter, sculptor, engineer, scientist and architect! All of that in one lifetime, which used science, he scientifically looked at this to create better pieces of art and he did things separate to his art, which relied on science but creativity helped there. Which ever way you look they seem to go hand in hand here. *pop* Or perhaps that’s just proving that, the whole world works deep down, in the same ways whether it is through, art or through science. Everything is joined where ever it comes from ultimately to follow the same sorts of paths, even two such different things. It all seems plausible Also what it is saying about understanding ones environment, surely both science and art do this? Same as art and science both look inwards to understand. Art almost overcomes science, when it comes to understanding the brain because it can express the inner workings in ways science can never be able to understand. Ah now I’m starting to think art is better than science, like it says in science one day "they'll be nothing left to analyse" its true. But in art it seems you will always be able to do something with it. Scientist will only be able to work over old theories in an attempt to find something new. I suppose you could say art, May one-day come to this same end. One day when all the colours have been painted, in all the ways it can etc then artists will come to a stand still and have to rework old things. Aint it just exciting not knowing! I think they kind of work together, balance each other out. One seems endless and one seems defined but I bet it’s not so simple if you looked harder into both. I’d like to think that they go hand in hand, helping explain the same and different aspects of life but in different ways for different people. (Look at this website, http://www.mos.org/leonardo/) - ooh the eeyes.
if there was a word to sum it all up, that'd deffinatly be it.. so it all comes down to maths... but thats another debate...
well damn! you go and get my attention with those two pages...but now what? I want more! Anyways, I agree with the point the guy says, that the highest human endeavor is to synthesize, to create, rather than to analyze or to divide. (though, paradoxically, creation is destruction of the old in the making of the new. nonetheless, time runs in one direction, out with the old, in with the new in a dynamic equilibrium of creation born of destruction). Life is creation unfolding, I've heard it said. Analytic thought is like looking backwards, creation is looking forwards, though it occurs in the Here and Now. So, not only is making art, poetry, literature, or even useful tools and buildings the point of life, but also, living, and living authentically, in the atmosphere of creation. That's enlightenment. Another thought is that science is a tool. It is not an end but a means to an end. We use science to make things and understand. But it's indiscriminate; it can go either way, on one hand making advances in medicine, on the other, atomic bombs and tanks. What is to guide us if we hold only to science? Art is the mystical side of life, in my book, closer to spirituality and religion than anything else. After all, most art was originally religiously inspired, like a tangible symbol for the spiritual side. Science is of the mind, but Art is of the heart and soul. We would be lost without it, indeed, we are lost, for our art and religion are shallow and weak (at least popular art is: tv, hollywood, hallmark poetry...it's all commercialized, bastardized, ruined. Even religion has turned literal and political/economical). And finally, I'll touch on what Dandelion Blood said. The early scientists of the modern era were artists too, they took art classes to help their science. Naturalists, they were called. They analyzed nature, but also put their findings to poetry or painting, their write ups were accompanied by well-drawn illustrations, they saw the beauty and LIFE in nature. Today's scientists are always looking at the parts, missing the whole, thus only dealing with dead pieces. This leads me to believe that science is a part of art, but art is more than science. Art is life.
Excellent thread. Yes BTM, I agree; Well stated Dandelion and Shaggie; Chiming nicely Fleassy and Quest; Thank You Dharma: I believe that, initially, science flows from art, and that the tools provided via science can be, and are, utilized for further scientific and artistic endevor; and that we initially think in langauges that are non-linguistic, some call this "the 'langauge of feelings'". As I see it, although these langauges include what are commonly referred to as "feelings" and will also include interhuman communication I would rather use the term "non-verbal langauge"; an example of this, so that we may get a better 'fix', is seen in the use of metaphor in dreaming. I have a distinct sense that, in general, human awareness of the level of utilization, meaning amount and significance, of these non-verbal langauges is presently very limited. I believe that the role that these non-verbal langauges play in the manifestation of intelligence, insight, creativity and 'everyday life' is huge; are central to these and other activities. I find it interesting how 'spontaneous realization' seems to play a primary role in many of our greatest scientific adavances; where is the thinking happening and in what "langauge" or "langauges" does it occur ? Think of the poet pausing, or Socretes frozen motionless for hours on a single spot, in order to translate into written or spoken form awarenesses that cannot initially be written or spoken of; good old Albert riding on a light beam or enjoying an elevator ? My sense, my awareness, is that we have fantastic capability to calculate and preceive using non-verbal langauges; that these calculations and perceptions presently, and at least for a long time to come, will not be able to be performed with unaided use of theoretical constructs, computers or other tools external to the human mind; and, that many of these "calculations and perceptions", already available within the human mind, have, potentially, great scientific and technologic value. Question with a simple answer: without being mislead by efforts, or compartmentalization of knowledge, within groups of humans; what is the source of the coding for the prototype, and thus itself a prototype, for any creation by a single human mind ? Peace and Good Dreams, David
wow, this is in an interesting topic, and a very interesting read. thank you, dharmamillo. i didn't quite understand alot of the excerpt, but maybe if i read the entire book, it would help. dandelion made some amazing points, and that was also a very enlightening read. thank you, dandelion. everything i wanted to say has been said, really. i really agreed with what fleassy said, science and art are two different ways of experssing oneself. some people take more to science (i wish i had more of a mind for science) and some take to art, like myself. both come from ideas; the scientist taking those ideas, analyzing them, theorizing, and acting up their theories and estimations. the artist taps into some unconscious idea, acts upon it, then later sits back and tries to analyze what they tapped in to. some artists do that, anyway, i personally am not quite like that. i don't over-analyze what my art is about, because i really enjoy the mystery behind not knowing. but, yeah, everyone made some really good points, and sorry if i just wasted time and didn't bring anything new to the discussion. >.<
phewey! It’s a wondrous and impressive feeling to know of people out there with like mind! For me, generally I feel that overall the problem is with the limit of the current human mind when interpreting reality - ironically given the gift of self awareness and lateral thought when witnessing this blissful life/universe but unable to communicate it adequately. We need to categorise things into finite concepts in order to work them within our brain and yet infinity surrounds us. I'd say that science and art are indeed aspects of something much greater. They are two labels that we discuss via the narrow mode of communication known as language in order to apply some sort of label to two observable and miniscule facets of a far greater whole. I suppose the Art and Science could merely be a reflection of different techniques used to approach the same subject; that of intuition and deduction. The power of the mind to come to feel truths through sheer introspective lateral thought power. And the power of the mind to take and question evidence gradually and logically to give proofs. The first needs empathy for others to understand. The second requires deductive experimentation. From both there is the unfortunate shortcut that most people must take which is that of faith. Faith is needed for those not open to the ways of empathic observance or are not educated in the fields being researched. I've never liked faith because it leads to dogma, and we all know where that leads... So could the concepts of science and art really be a reflection of our own conscious into the world in order to categorize and understand? You could say art will never launch a spaceship but could equally argue sci-fi stories are needed to inspire. Science takes a rather one-sided broadside attack in the part of the story above. From my experience science can be just as creative and inspirational. Think of a naked Greek man jumping out of a bath when realising how to accurately measure volume via liquid displacement. This strikes tones somewhere in the ethereal depths of my mind when we think of how it was nature that inspired him as he watched the overflow of his bath when lowering himself into it. It's beyond nature... its universe. Well, for me they are the same anyway. Life can't be outside the universe, ergo the universe -as a whole entity- is alive. Reality breathes something beyond 'breath'. Macroscopic echoes of microscopic entropy bridge mechanisms permeating beyond scale, time, energy/matter...... Perhaps? If I was to analogise this thing that is greater and beyond its humanised interpretations such as 'art' and 'science' I could use a tree: I would place art as the roots, the nutrition, the inspiration, creativity. Science as the trunk, solid, built up upon, gradually climbing. Some day I hope to see the glorious canopy... ~ p.s.(sorry for using the word 'ergo' !) ~
