Sid, what are you attacking me for? I never did anything other than report the facts. And you're making way too many assumptions about my views.
Art is dumb. One time in art class I got an F for drawing wind lines. Science is dumb too. "Look at me, I have a microscope." Good for you, professor idiotface. *high fives your mother*
People who hide are afraid!
I'll be back with science-art right after I go to the shop. NEED TO BUY ME SOME CHICKEN.
Last edited by Polednice; May-13-2012 at 15:54.
Funny how people around here can be pessimistic about humans but optimistic, even utopian, about science and technology.
Indeed. Better living through chemistry (Zyklon B) and technology (Hiroshima). It reminds me of the naive view of the late 19th and early 20th century that imagined humanity had become virtually the master of all they surveyed. One would have thought the two world wars alone would have altered that and made people a bit more cautious with regard to the infallibility of science.
Whoah, whoah, whoah - let's slow down right there! Everybody look at the emphasised part of the quote. Since when did science have a voice? Science doesn't say anything, science doesn't get things right or wrong, scientists do, humans do.
Hmmm... this sounds vaguely like the defense employed by the NRA (the national Rifle Association): "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Of course it's true... but guns certainly make killing people a lot easier. You don't even need to get all that near the other person. I must say I suspect that some of the distrust of science is the manner in which the defendants/apologists for science insist upon the infallibility of science. If anything goes wrong... if a scientific development is abused... its not the fault of science... its the fault of the individuals. Yet how often is religion (to use but a single example) afforded the same consideration? It seems to me that a good many here (and elsewhere) feel free to damn the whole of Islam or Catholicism (or the religion of your choice) for the admittedly horrible actions of individuals.
So why do many artists have a less than glowing appreciation of science. I think PetrB hits on some key points:
No one likes their beloved clinically dissected.
The nature of science is to exclude anything not 95% verifiable as certain: Art is all about intuition and uncertainty, even when the final product has concrete forms, and a set of precepts about the medium itself. -- there is no accounting for the intuitive, seeming arbitrary choices many a composer works with, and within, on a regular basis.
Undoubtedly many artists have little knowledge or interest in science (Leonardo excepted), and many scientists have little or no interest in the arts. This alone is enough to inspire a distrust of the "other". How often are artists portrayed by those in the more practical disciplines (such as science) as flighty, impractical, emotional?
Application doesn't matter, and I don't think anyone seriously studying the science of art has even thought for a second about scientifically creating art. Sure, there are a few composition algorithms, but these are tongue in cheek, and not the aim of 99% of current research. We just want to know more, not do more. I find it peculiar how people don't understand this - perhaps it's a symptom of a society that must place utility values on everything in a form of super-consumerism.
My guess is that you are either being quite ingenuous here... or quite naive. I highly doubt that the governments and corporations... and universities (which are bankrolled by both) invest billions in scientific research merely on a whim... a desire to know more. The arts and humanities are constantly struggling to maintain their pitiable funding and are repeatedly called to prove their practical worth (links between music and mathematics, etc...). You cannot honestly believe that the billions and billions invested in scientific research is simply the result of curiosity.
Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working.
Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with
those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.
Previously in this thread:
You can't really criticise someone's metaphor if you are willing to use similar. Of course science says things, there are consensus views amongst scientists about how many things work. Certainly scientists don't always agree, it is not a wholly unified voice but "science says the earth revolves around the sun" is hardly putting words into the mouth of Science. Thalidomide was said by the majority of scientists in that specific field, to be safe and useful, the personified Science endorsed it for a while, even though they were relatively quick to admit their mistake.
As to your main question: I haven't known an especial hostility of the arts towards the sciences. Many artists feel themselves obliged to criticise scientists when they act foolishly, arrogantly, carelessly, traits all humans have a tendency towards no matter how rigorously they think they are applying the scientific method.
Every field of human thought has a strawman guarding it, I suppose that protects it from ignorant crows.
Last edited by aleazk; May-13-2012 at 17:00.
Dear Jeebus, I'm surprised to see so many naive things here. Oh well, let's set about them.
As for religion, when in its organised form, it is not an impartial tool that can be used for good or bad. It is a collection of dogmas, or at least a set of morals. There is no morality in the scientific method whatsoever. These are even less comparable, and are unworthy of further discussion.
I'm really quite surprised by the low calibre of argument that has appeared on this page. I'm sure I sound tremendously up myself and arrogant right now, but it really has been some of the worst I've seen. Maybe I should have expected it from a forum dedicated to one of the arts - it just shows how endemic the problem is.
I'll be back with some art in a few minutes.
Last edited by Polednice; May-13-2012 at 17:22.
So, some science-art for you. First, there's Greg Dunn. He's a neuroscientist himself who has a passion for Japanese art (WAIT! A SCIENTIST WHO LIKES ART?!?!? GET OUT!), and uses gold leaf and scrolls to create paintings of brain structures. This one is called 'Hippocampus':
Then, in music, you have folks like Michael Zev Gordon. Presenting the opposite trend, Gordon is a musician trained in the UK who is interested in science, and he used features of the genetic code (particularly the A, C, G, T sequence) to transcribe music.
Literature is probably the most obvious realm where science and art meet, particularly in science fiction. Look to Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, Christopher Priest - there's tonnes of the stuff.
Let's also not forget that science can be a kind of art in its own right. As Stluke hinted at earlier, these drawings by Da Vinci are not only fascinating, they're beautiful.
And who can look at a fruit of science such as the Carina Nebula and not feel a sense of aesthetic awe that is fundamentally rooted in artistic taste?
Polednice, you are sharped like a knife today! (try to not kill them, they can use that as an analogy for something! )
I don't think you sound up yourself, just kind of caught fighting the imaginary hoards of anti-science zombies, you probably believe me to be hostile to science because I disagreed with you. There are many that will use any of the mistakes or wrong turns of scientists to dismiss science as it suits their dislike of certain scientific conclusions but I don't see that any more prevalent in the arts than anywhere else.
C.P. Snow's typified "two cultures" of science and the humanities, scientific illiteracy was not seen as significant, while high culture illiteracy was regarded as an embarrassment. Things have changed since the 50s when Snow described that and while there is still often a wide gulf, owing to the ways both are conducted, it does not imply hostility, only ignorance.
I spent a fortune on deodorant before I realized that people don't like me anyway.