Thread: Hostility towards science in the arts

Originally Posted by brianwalker

And my point earlier was that a higher proportion of people are hostile towards art than hostile towards science, or religion, philosophy, or classical music for that matter.

I didn't pick up on that. Even if that was your point though, I think it's unsafe to speculate about the numbers. Sure, the population at large has quite a problem with art, considering it elite and pointless. But science conflicts with a lot of people's ideas about how the world works metaphysically, and that has a much more direct impact than art snobbery. I don't think there's any way of telling which is more hated without doing a proper analysis.

Originally Posted by PetrB

But dear Cnote11 -- what are guns for? All weaponry is based upon the idea of 'putting a hole in the other guy.'

Your ignorance is showing.

They sound similar, yes, but those are extremely poor analogies. Let's consider the comparison between guns and science. Remove the human, and what are we left with? Two tools of very different natures. I mean, what is science? People assume it's chemistry and physics and rockets and bombs, but science is really just a framework for inquiry. You can inquire about anything you want, but there are certain rigorous methods and standards to make it more likely you get a reasonable answer. It has no goals, no pre-set purpose. What about a gun? Well, yes, it's just a chunk of metal, but it's sole purpose is to inflict damage. Even if self-defence, it's use is to maim or kill. These are utterly incomparable things, and it's beneath you to compare them.

C'mon Polednice... I know you're not that naive. You're just being really ingenuous here. You can argue that science exists in some Platonic ideal outside the reality of human existence... but you know that's not true. We must acknowledge the role of science in the development of TV and microwaves and the computer and the internet and modern medical wonders... but science has also been employed in the creation of nuclear warheads and the rockets that deliver these and the radar technologies that direct them and the development of bio-chemical warfare, etc...

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.

And perhaps that is part of the reason many distrust science and scientists... a lack of any morals. I suppose Robert Oppenheimer was able to sleep well at night thinking that he was in no way responsible for Hiroshima. He was only seeking knowledge. What others did with that knowledge wasn't his business at all. Is it at all possible that knowledge... too much knowledge... knowledge of certain things... can be dangerous? Humanity dating back to at least the Adam and Eve narrative seems to have thought so. Certainly the theme pops up again and again: Pandora's Box, Prometheus, Frankenstein.

I'm not sure if you wrote that or if you're quoting PetrB, but whoever wrote it is again providing a Hollywood stereotype. What is it with these?! You're all supposed to be familiar with art, seeing as you're all deeply into classical music, and yet you believe this twaddle about the uncertainty and intuitiveness of art as compared to the dull rationality of science? It's childish.

Perhaps the problem here is that you are merely studying art (literature) while I am an artist... and as such I recognize the fact that the creation of art is in no way limited to conscious, analytical, rational thinking. Uncertainty, accidents, the subconscious, intuition, divergent thinking, etc... all play a major role in the creation of art. Your comments concerning the "childishness" of my thinking with regard to artistic creation is but one more example of why many artists distrust science and scientists. Far too often they imagine that art can be reduced to scientific rules, and far too often they take a patronizing attitude toward those poor childish artists and their notions of intuition, emotion, the subconscious, etc...

I haven't spoken to many artists about science, but I am familiar with a not inconsiderable number of them who are fascinated by science and even write about it. Because what it comes down to is that scientists and artists are all creative, and they're all extremely curious people.

So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me.

I might make quite different claims based upon my experiences. Not that artists deride the whole of science. Geometry, optics, chemistry (with regard to the make up of paints), the basic physics as involved in architectural design and construction are quite common interests of most painters and sculptors.

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.

I think you're twisting my words. It's quite obvious I wasn't talking about governments or corporations or universities. Of course they invest because they think there'll be some return (and there usually is, which is why the current under-funding of science is idiotic). But I was obviously talking about scientists...

But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world.

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.

And as arrogant and pretentious as you do indeed sound in your current role as apologist for science, can you in any way wonder why many in the arts and humanities are not enthusiastically embracing science and scientists?

This thread is really boring.

Also, one should know there is a special committee for deciding which arguments are invalid.

My premise was that some people are hostile towards science being applied to arts. I didn't set up a dichotomy between the arts and science, other people did...

You asked for reasons why there is this perceived antagonism between individuals who are passionate about two very different disciplines: Science vs the Arts. You might just as well used any number of other dichotomies: Football and the Ballet (Why are so few football fans enamored of ballet?) Hunting and Poetry (Why are so few hunters interested in Yeats, Keats, and T.S. Eliot?) Bowling and Medicine (Why aren't more doctors participating on bowling leagues?)

After establishing your dichotomy... which you are certain is false (And is it? Is there no distrust, antagonism... or simply misunderstanding between the Adherents of science and Art?) you set about dismissing all the reasons presented by others and insulting them... effectively illustrating at least one reason why there might be a degree of antagonism between art and science: arrogance.

I don't think people who bowl are actively hostile towards medicine. It seems to me you are distorting what Polednice is attempting to say.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

C'mon Polednice... I know you're not that naive. You're just being really ingenuous here. You can argue that science exists in some Platonic ideal outside the reality of human existence... but you know that's not true. We must acknowledge the role of science in the development of TV and microwaves and the computer and the internet and modern medical wonders... but science has also been employed in the creation of nuclear warheads and the rockets that deliver these and the radar technologies that direct them and the development of bio-chemical warfare, etc...

Sure, I acknowledge that the scientific method was a necessary condition for the creation of those, but I can't even remember what this point was about. Something to do with the NRA? I think it's strayed a little from the point of the OP, and the morality of science is a large, separate issue that I'm not interested in spending time on right now (though it's worth considering that for all the bad it has aided, Pandora's Box, Frankenstein, and 21st Century equivalents have the same air as old fogies who condemn young'uns for being amoral. The world just keeps getting better in reality).

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Perhaps the problem here is that you are merely studying art (literature) while I am an artist... and as such I recognize the fact that the creation of art is in no way limited to conscious, analytical, rational thinking. Uncertainty, accidents, the subconscious, intuition, divergent thinking, etc... all play a major role in the creation of art. Your comments concerning the "childishness" of my thinking with regard to artistic creation is but one more example of why many artists distrust science and scientists. Far too often they imagine that art can be reduced to scientific rules, and far too often they take a patronizing attitude toward those poor childish artists and their notions of intuition, emotion, the subconscious, etc...

Let's not be too prescriptive with labels. I may not get paid for it or consider myself a professional, but I write poetry and music - I hope we won't get into a debate about whether or not I qualify for the title "writer" or "composer". I also don't think that creativity is limited to analytical and rational thinking, nor do I think uncertainty and intuition are not major factors; I also do not set out to demean the role of the subconscious and emotion. These accusations you think I'm making stem from your earlier bias that I set out against that there is this stringent division between emotional art and rational science. Both science and art are equally analytical and scatty, emotional and rational, conscious and subconscious. Everything plays a role, and that's why I don't think they're as dissimilar or separate as you or others seem to believe. The only time I might patronise poor childish artists is when they think that intuition and emotion is all there is to their work.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me.

Indeed, I thought that when writing it but thought, "what the hell.. everyone else posts ****** anecdotes!" I think it would stand up to surveys, though, that people in the arts and sciences are generally curious about everything and don't restrict themselves so arbitrarily to their own "culture".

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world.

Of course the scientists know that strings are attached, and so do the artists who rely on patronage of some form or another. But do you think that artists go into it for the utility or the money? Did you? I don't think many do. They do it because they are idealistic - passionately and rightfully so - but then do what they can to justify their endeavours to the money-givers. It's a game they have to play to keep on doing what they're doing. This is true for scientists and artists.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

And as arrogant and pretentious as you do indeed sound in your current role as apologist for science, can you in any way wonder why many in the arts and humanities are not enthusiastically embracing science and scientists?

Because of the rampant stereotypes and misunderstanding evidenced in this thread.

But I doubt all that many doctors can be found at the local bowling alley. Or perhaps I'm just frequenting the wrong alleys.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

You asked for reasons why there is this perceived antagonism between individuals who are passionate about two very different disciplines: Science vs the Arts. You might just as well used any number of other dichotomies: Football and the Ballet (Why are so few football fans enamored of ballet?) Hunting and Poetry (Why are so few hunters interested in Yeats, Keats, and T.S. Eliot?) Bowling and Medicine (Why aren't more doctors participating on bowling leagues?)

After establishing your dichotomy... which you are certain is false (And is it? Is there no distrust, antagonism... or simply misunderstanding between the Adherents of science and Art?) you set about dismissing all the reasons presented by others and insulting them... effectively illustrating at least one reason why there might be a degree of antagonism between art and science: arrogance.

My essential point which no one seems willing to pick up on is that science and art are not all that dissimilar, and the dichotomy comes from people such as yourself who are determined to maintain the imaginary wall.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

But I doubt all that many doctors can be found at the local bowling alley. Or perhaps I'm just frequenting the wrong alleys.

I don't think people would be hostile to the idea of doctors frequenting bowling alleys. Obviously they don't in large numbers, since doctors make up a small amount of the population. It needs credentials. Almost everybody has an opinion on science, whether they are well-versed in it or not. I just don't really see how what everybody has been arguing about for 2 pages is relative to the topic anymore.

Originally Posted by Polednice

Why do you think it exists?

I think it's quite similar to philosophers and religionists who jump to shout "scientism!" at every opportunity, making sure everyone knows that it's only one way of knowing (because, of course, divine revelation is an equally valid foundation for making assertions about the mechanics of the universe...).

We do have to be careful not to think that science is the answer to everything, or that reductionist approaches - while certainly possible in all areas - will give us meaningful or useful answers in all areas. Yet, in my experience reading science books and through interacting with scientists, I have come across no one who thinks like that. I very much think that people try to pull science down not because people are applying it too broadly, but because they want some metaphysical or non-rational system to be elevated alongside it. It's quite pathetic.

...There's a happy medium to be found somewhere in all of this, but I think that our critical eye doesn't need to be applied with antagonism. When a scientist comes out with a research article, they're not making claims to having discovered some grand answer that explains everything. They're providing their own small contribution to a huge conversation - a conversation you might reasonably be a part of if you're willing to voice your critical ideas in a manner that suggests you hope research is improved next time, rather than in a way that makes it seem as though you think science has no place whatsoever in the arts.

...

Okay I reread the OP, and now I think I can see it more clearly. Maybe?

The part I bolded about different scientific research or aspects/areas of science, different conclusions makes me think of history, which is my passion. I've said it before here, in history one has to examine and apply critical thinking and sleuthing, educated guesses, to primary, secondary and tertiary sources. A mixture of documents. Often no two historians will come up with the same ideas about what or how things happened at a certain point in time. Or even when, if the date is disputed.

So what I'm saying is that there is a method to historical research. Same as there is a method to science (eg. doing experiments to test hypotheses). This can be very creative as you are led down different paths at once, focus on one avenue that's more fruitful, and may have to retrace your steps.

What I take from this is that humans are innately creative and they are unique in how they think and attack a problem or question.

So what I take from the OP is that in science, as in history, there is a higher level which does approach the creativity found in art. People can make different conclusions from same or similar evidence. & don't forget that many scientific and historical - well eg. archeological - discoveries where made by mistake or coincidence (eg. while trying to find or researching something else). There are so many examples of this.

Pandora's Box, Frankenstein, and 21st Century equivalents have the same air as old fogies who condemn young'uns for being amoral.

Again... you are making some rather large and arrogant presumptions. All those who question the infallibility of science and the notion of "better living through chemistry or technology"... especially after having witnessed the horrors of the last century and all that was wrought in part by idealistic notions of social science, medicine, psychiatry, physics, etc... are to be dismissed as old "fuddy-duddies"? It seems to me that the questions as to whether there is something such as too much knowledge or "forbidden knowledge" remains relevant.

The world just keeps getting better in reality.

Does it? That's always open to debate.

Let's not be too prescriptive with labels. I may not get paid for it or consider myself a professional, but I write poetry and music - I hope we won't get into a debate about whether or not I qualify for the title "writer" or "composer".

Yes... let's avoid that debate. I'm not up for the post-Duchamp/post-1960's notion that everyone's an "artist". I had a headache this morning and took some Ibuprofen... I guess that qualifies me as a "doctor" as well.

I also don't think that creativity is limited to analytical and rational thinking, nor do I think uncertainty and intuition are not major factors; I also do not set out to demean the real of the subconscious and emotion. These accusations you think I'm making stem from your earlier bias that I set out against that there is this stringent division between emotional art and rational science. Both science and art are equally analytical and scatty, emotional and rational, conscious and subconscious. Everything plays a role, and that's why I don't think they're as dissimilar or separate as you or others seem to believe.

I don't question this... but honestly I think there's more of a perception of hostility directed toward the arts (rather than science) by those in nearly every other discipline for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible to establish a practical use or necessity for the arts.

The only time I might patronise poor childish artists is when they think that intuition and emotion is all there is to their work.

I have no use for such thinking myself. I'm quite frequently the first to challenge those who embrace such Romantic ideals and presume that discipline, practice, knowledge of art history, compositional rules, color theory, anatomy, perspective, geometry, etc... is not only unnecessary to the visual arts... but actually detrimental.

So your notion of the thinking of artists is based upon personal experience with a sample group that is admittedly limited in scope. Hmmm... doesn't sound all that scientific to me.

Indeed, I thought that when writing it but thought, "what the hell.. everyone else posts ****** anecdotes!" I think it would stand up to surveys, though, that people in the arts and sciences are generally curious about everything and don't restrict themselves so arbitrarily to their own "culture".

Well... again it would depend upon how you define interest in science. I personally utilize basic geometry and perspective (and have studied the use of such by Islamic and Western artists. Over the years I have employed basic physics as related to construction. I have also studied chemistry as it relates to the drying times of various pigments of oil paint, etc... I also spent a good deal of time in the study of anatomy and physiology... as it affects the surface appearance of the human body. On the other hand... I can't say I've ever been greatly interested in reading up on physics, biology, chemistry, etc... I'm far more interested in history and art/cultural history of both my own culture... and others. I have an artist friend who loves mathematics... but most of the artists I know don't really seem overly interested in science

But are all these scientists really so naive as to imagine that the money that allows for them to do the research has no strings attached? You keep speaking of science as something abstract that exists in an ideal outside of reality. Science exists in the same real world as art. How often do we hear of art/artists being questioned or spoken of as "living in an ivory tower?" I'm always wary of idealism in any discipline. Science, Art, Religion, Political Theory... all exist in the imperfect human world.

Of course the scientists know that strings are attached, and so do the artists who rely on patronage of some form or another. But do you think that artists go into it for the utility or the money?

Well... there's always Samuel Johnson's declaration: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." This strikes many of us today as blasphemous... but we're all living with post-Romantic thinking. I wonder how many Renaissance or Classical-era Greeks and Romans would even think to question this notion.

Did you? I don't think many do.

Certainly I went into art with the notion that I might be able to make a living from what I am passionate about... and good at. I still hold onto this notion. On the other hand... if you could see into the future and told me that I would never make another dime from my art, I would continue to make art. I would assume that a great many individuals go into a field of study that they are interested in with similar notions that they might be able to make a living from it.

They do it because they are idealistic - passionately and rightfully so - but then do what they can to justify their endeavours to the money-givers. It's a game they have to play to keep on doing what they're doing.

Unfortunately, this game sometimes involves "pandering" to the audience/patrons. Those who insist they would never stoop to such a level are in most circumstances those who have never been presented with such temptation. One of my studio mates presented us with the question... "What if a buyer told you, 'I really like this painting, but could you make one in red?' offering you a substantial sum of money." My other studio mate responded, without skipping a beat, "I'd say f*** you! How soon do you need it and what shade of red do you prefer?"

I just made art.

I love how you arrive and post a one liner every so often, and then you proudly disappear into the sunset with the certainty that we can't wait until your next visit.