Is the Beauty of Knowledge Enough?

[FZ+]

Traditionally, it has been maintained that science and art are separate subjects - perhaps even diametrically opposed. But I hypothesise that true scientific endeavour is art in action, and that a good theory is an art form.

First, what is art?

Definition:

1. [n] the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
2. [n] the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
3. [n] a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"

--
And so art is based on the idea of something developed not for use, but for it's own sake in terms of "beauty".

A good theory is beautiful. It is simply, yet has meaning to us, implications that unfold. It stimulates us intellectually, opens up new worlds, new ways of thing, and gets us closer to the truth. It harmonises with other ideals, flows onward and excites admiration. Why does a scientist do the work he does? Like an artist, I think it is down for the beauty of the ideas and knowledge itself.

Comments?

 

[Another God]

But science is way too practical. It produces results which can be used to make things/change things etc.

Science is also intrinsically linked with progress. There is a progression from one scienctific theory to the next, each an improvement on the last. New theories absorb old theories, encapsulating them and improving them. Art does not do this.

(or does it...?)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Traditionally, it has been maintained that science and art are separate subjects - perhaps even diametrically opposed. But I hypothesise that true scientific endeavour is art in action, and that a good theory is an art form.

First, what is art?

Definition:

1. [n] the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
2. [n] the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
3. [n] a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"

--
And so art is based on the idea of something developed not for use, but for it's own sake in terms of "beauty".

A good theory is beautiful. It is simply, yet has meaning to us, implications that unfold. It stimulates us intellectually, opens up new worlds, new ways of thing, and gets us closer to the truth. It harmonises with other ideals, flows onward and excites admiration. Why does a scientist do the work he does? Like an artist, I think it is down for the beauty of the ideas and knowledge itself.

Comments?

As I see it, some science is art and some isn't. Most of string theory's appeal is in it's elegance and beauty (much like that of Relativity in Einstein's eyes), and thus I believe that this is artistically appreciated (according to your definitions). However, much of what is done in the fields of (for example) Geology or Biology (I'm not cutting down on either field, I like both of them, they are just examples) is completely without artistic value, inspite of it's obvious scientific value.

 

[FZ+]

Art does not do this.

(or does it...?)

I think you have sort of answered your own question here... Whenever we talk about an artist, we can usually point to "influences". A scientist can similar point to influences from the art of Newton, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac, Archemides, Aristotle...

Geology or Biology (I'm not cutting down on either field, I like both of them, they are just examples) is completely without artistic value

Maybe they are modern art?

 

[quantumcarl]

FZ+...

Science is the study of nature.

Art is the study of nature.

Any questions!?

 

[FZ+]

That begs the question:

Is ALL the study of nature art?

 

[Kerrie]

i think art is a result of nature, science defines nature...

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
That begs the question:

Is ALL the study of nature art?

Art and science are a result of human nature. (Carl)

People use art as one way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.

People use science as another way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.

Art is a word that describes the action of recording,
reproducing and/or creating a phenomenon.

Science is a word that describes, basically, the same action.

It is the methodologies that differ between these two disciplines.

There will always be an art to science as there will be
a science to art.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Art and science are a result of human nature. (Carl)

People use art as one way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.

People use science as another way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.

Art is a word that describes the action of recording,
reproducing and/or creating a phenomenon.

I disagree with this definition of "art". FZ+ gave a few definitions in the initial post that I'm a little more comfortable with. The reason I don't much care for calling "art" the action of recording or reproducing or creating phenomena is because, in the minds of most people, there is a difference between people who chop at a rock to produce an image, and people who are actual artists at sculpting (as an example).

So, if there is something that distinguishes an artist from one who merely reproduces images (whether with pain or by sculpting or through music, etc...), then there must be some dividing line between which sciences (or uses of Science) are "art" and which aren't.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat in the minds of most people, there is a difference between people who chop at a rock to produce an image, and people who are actual artists at sculpting
[/B]

All you have distinguished in your statement is the difference between bad art and good art. And, since this is a philosophy thread, good art and bad art and what determines them can be debated till the baited breath has abated.

Its a similar dilema with science. There are scientists who will take a few minutes to decide on a theory, then listen to no one concerning their findings...

and there are scientists who will take years to correctly and accurately represent what it is they have found in nature that warrents them spending time on a theory. Since this is a philosophy thread even these two approaches can be debated till the cows come home as to which method will sustain and hold up under criticisms best.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
All you have distinguished in your statement is the difference between bad art and good art.

Not really, in fact I don't think such a thing as "bad art" can exist, since (at the very least) in the mind of the artist it is "good".

I think I already mentioned my example of the difference between science that is art and science that is not, namely: General Relativity (and it's newest off-spring, M-Theory) was recognized by it's creator (Einstein) merely for it's beauty and elegance. Thus, Relativity is artistic science. However, Quantum Theory (for example) is not in anyway "elegant" or "beautiful", and was recognized only for it's ability to predict the behavior of subatomic particles. Thus QT is not artistic science.

What do you think of this distinction?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not really, in fact I don't think such a thing as "bad art" can exist, since (at the very least) in the mind of the artist it is "good".

I think I already mentioned my example of the difference between science that is art and science that is not, namely: General Relativity (and it's newest off-spring, M-Theory) was recognized by it's creator (Einstein) merely for it's beauty and elegance. Thus, Relativity is artistic science. However, Quantum Theory (for example) is not in anyway "elegant" or "beautiful", and was recognized only for it's ability to predict the behavior of subatomic particles. Thus QT is not artistic science.

What do you think of this distinction?

"elegant" and "beautiful" are subjective terms that ascribe certain types of values to certain types of phenomena (such as theories). To some people QT is a high art form. I don't think you've made your point yet.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mentat seems to have hit it the closest, my opinion only, inasmuch as he recognizes in Art, an 'Artist', whereas in Science, No 'Artist' is recognized.

Further to that is the Simplicity that Science work(s) are meant to be reproducable, to everyone who follows the same pathway of experimentation, whereas in Art, that simply is not the case, as Art is to be considered 'unique' to that Artist. (yes I know, it is reproducable, but isn't meant to be, and is NOT considered "original", "New" is what Science uses)

I find the mention of geology interseting as I had previously (somewheres else, other then PF) used the idea of the view of the Rockies Mountains, that I had from my backyard in Calgary, as an example of sensible/palpable art, (you can feel the beauty) as the Beauty of them is undeniable, (even though you know what you look at is simply SOLID ROCK) and it was later pointed out that the same kind of beauty can be found in them right up close, the faucets of the rock crystals themselves, their arrangements and the beauty of the reflective nature of the surfaces.

 

[FZ+]

Mr Parson: So you would put art as a matter of uniqueness? But isn't it true that each person develops an unique understanding of a theory, and so though they may arrive at the same effect, the road they travel is different. They see the world differently.

But my idea of art is as a matter of intention - art is something made with the intention not to be useful, but to be beautiful. And in science and art, beauty is synomous to a major part with truth - if only the truth in the way we see something. I think science to a degree at least qualifies.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+

But my idea of art is as a matter of intention - art is something made with the intention not to be useful, but to be beautiful. And in science and art, beauty is synomous to a major part with truth - if only the truth in the way we see something. I think science to a degree at least qualifies.

FZ+my good man... I beg to differ on one point... the intention of art is to explore nature. There is nothing beautiful about Goya's men being torn apart by a giant or Munch's screaming maniac on the bridge... yet they fetch our attention and great monitary value while at the same time stimulating an understanding about the times during which these artists lived.

The intention of art is that Art serves as a vent, a record, entertainment and even healing if you believe colour/art therapists. Each individual artist offers a new intention with their work... as does any professional in any profession.

Otherwise, I agree that an exploration of the truth surrounding a matter is inherent in both disciplines, art and science... and, as I've stipulated... the more detailed the science gets in a society... the more detailed the art of the same society becomes and VISA VERSA.

It is more often that not, over history, that science preceeds art. Art feeds off the discouveries and inventions of Science.

This may continue for a time. Yet, philosophy, like art, can also tend to lead science into newer realms to explore. But, and I say but... who's to say what came first... the chicken or the egg?

I am inclined to say that it is the inquisitive and scientific mind that brought into being most of what we call art, today.

Everyone sees an emotional puddle of goo when they think of an artist. Yet, when you really think about it... the artist is studying the emotion... in many cases... not living them... but observing and utilizing them to communicate a state or condition.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
Mr Parson: So you would put art as a matter of uniqueness? But isn't it true that each person develops an unique understanding of a theory, and so though they may arrive at the same effect, the road they travel is different. They see the world differently.

But my idea of art is as a matter of intention - art is something made with the intention not to be useful, but to be beautiful. And in science and art, beauty is synomous to a major part with truth - if only the truth in the way we see something. I think science to a degree at least qualifies.

Humm, how's about Eintstein's description of the Universe is an art form, in it's own right, but Einstein himself is NOT the artist, but merely the person describing the Art that he observes.

When I do a painting, I am the Artist. the only real difference here is the manner of presentation of description, Einstein using language, and myself using color on canvas.

Einstein is not allowed any license in his art form, I am allowed all of the license I would like to induge in, AND, am encouraged, (in certain art forms) to expand well past accurate description into the realm of interpretive, with accolades if it is done well. Einstein is clearly very restricted compared to what I, as a painter, am/can do(ing).

I would agree that there is art in science, and that some forms of Science are clearly Art. Replication of observation of the interior of a human body comes to mind, and I have seen some clearly excellant examples of that kind of work.

They meld, I suspect, and dividing them back separate is what poses some dilema.

(lemme think on it some more...Please)

 

[laserblue]

ART and SCIENCE

There is an equivocation involving the use of the word ART here. As well, there has been a drift in the meaning of both the words ART and SCIENCE for many centuries.
To a person of modern times SCIENCE refers to a large discipline of enquiry. To someone of the past science referred to the acquired knowledge within an area of study. SCIENCE was passive while ART, being a skill or skills acquired from long experience was active.
Today, the discipline of science is very much an art. It is not just something one knows but something one DOES. In SPARKS OF GENIUS, Robert Scott Root-Bernstein looks at about a dozen aspects of the art of science.
Quantumcarl sums it up quite well.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by laserblue
(SNIP)Quantumcarl sums it up quite well. (SNoP)

Do you mean with this?

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Art and science are a result of human nature. (Carl)
People use art as one way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.
People use science as another way of measuring, mimicing and studying nature.
Art is a word that describes the action of recording,
reproducing and/or creating a phenomenon.
Science is a word that describes, basically, the same action.
It is the methodologies that differ between these two disciplines.
There will always be an art to science as there will be
a science to art.

Because if it is that writing, well, he misses one of the most important differentiations between Art and Science, the oblique right of an artist to lie (outrightly, and known to be that!) in their presentation of a work. As in a completley imaginary landscape scene that has absolutely no comport in reality, can still garner attention, accreditation, and be seen as meritorious.

NO scientist is permitted to hold to any "lie" that cannot be found as properly representing some aspect of reality, with, in this case only the use of the word "lie" being quoted as meaning an unrealized lie sometimes known as "The currently known truth" until Proven otherwise.

 

[FZ+]

Humm, how's about Eintstein's description of the Universe is an art form, in it's own right, but Einstein himself is NOT the artist, but merely the person describing the Art that he observes.

But the action of his theory is in itself an art - an artistic representation of another artwork, perhaps. The same with your painting, as the world you paint is the same world Einstein paints with his equations - true to the way you and he sees it.

Einstein is not allowed any license in his art form, I am allowed all of the license I would like to induge in, AND, am encouraged, (in certain art forms) to expand well past accurate description into the realm of interpretive, with accolades if it is done well.

Let me use a loophole. In my opinion, using artistic license, going into the interpretive is still a description - but not of what comes in your eyes but of the way your mind conceives it. It is still truth to you.

It can be argued that what we see of the world can only be through our subjective perception - thus, both the artist and Einstein are both truthful - but one of them represents a truth that the shared by the many, instead of the one.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
(SNIP) It can be argued that what we see of the world can only be through our subjective perception - thus, both the artist and Einstein are both truthful - but one of them represents a truth that the shared by the many, instead of the one. (SNoP)

That stated, what I can represent, as an artist, is permitted to be an existent lie, a Scientist is restricted from using that, or claiming it as "his art" as/of/in origin, "I" (under my "name") am still permitted to claim it as mine, 'AaaaaaND! to be rewarded with recognition/fame/acclaim/noteworthyness/notoriety/(But NOT)Notoriousness{Unless I like killed someone, or something like that, UGH! wrong reasons!) for it.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Piccasso is Famed for his 2d/3d versions of "works" that clearly do NOT repersent The reality, but an interpretation of it that, No scientist, worth there salt, could get away with that as anything other then a neat game

Einstein couldn't do things like that, none of the scientists that are Historically Reknowned did anything like that, unless ascribed as Art.

Would you like to see some Award Winning Scientist's Art(s)works? "www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/vis2003"[/URL]

 

[quantumcarl]

Art is my mechanic.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Art is my mechanic.

...and he/she is practising a Science...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, how's about Eintstein's description of the Universe is an art form, in it's own right, but Einstein himself is NOT the artist, but merely the person describing the Art that he observes.

These words, by the distinguished Mr. Robin Parsons, almost completely arrive at expressing the difference between an artist and a scientist.

A scientist is not analagous to the artist so much as to the art historian or critic.

A scientist may be said to have achieved his end artistically in the same way that some art criticism is exceptional, above and beyong the call of clear expository writing. If there is n "art" to science, it is in the same way there is an "art" to criticism or history.

I really do not think science is art, for the same reasons pointed out by Mr. Robin Parsons.

Art is always much less about the content of the art than it is about the mind of the artist. We don't castigate an artist for his "interpretations" or distortions, because it is these very idiosynchracies that we enjoy nd look for. People who indulge in the same thing in the realm of science are, quite rightly, known as 'cranks' and 'pseudoscientists'.

-----

In a different vein: It surprises me how much the people in this thread appreciate art and are discussing the subject seriously and soberly. A group of artists, and I know many, would balk at the comparison. Artists, it seems, have a much more stereotyped view of science and scientists than scientists do of artists, (if this thread constitutes any kind of representative sample). To artists, science is "cold, dry, factual, dead." (Terms I've heard applied.)

-Zoobyshoe

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes this is a long standing asymmetry. Physicists may write poetry but poets don't do physics. Seems to me to imply that scientists as a group lead richer lives than artists as a group. Or is that a paradox?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Seems to me to imply that scientists as a group lead richer lives than artists as a group.

Look at the difference in salaries

And, whomever it was who said that "artists can lie" when they represent something incorrectly to make it "fit" or whatever... but scientists cannot because they'll lose all their standing etc...

horsepuckies.

Practically every doctor, scientist or researching PhD I've known, and that is a large number, has fudged their data to make a nice curve on their graph or a better number in their table. And they're still standing... and they still have standing... and they can attribute some of their standing to that fudged data.

When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by quantumcarl And, whomever it was who said that "artists can lie" when they represent something incorrectly to make it "fit" or whatever... but scientists cannot because they'll lose all their standing etc...

Please quote this person, verbatim.

Practically every doctor, scientist or researching PhD I've known, and that is a large number, has fudged their data to make a nice curve on their graph or a better number in their table. And they're still standing... and they still have standing... and they can attribute some of their standing to that fudged data.

If their fudged data were to come to light they would no longer be standing.

When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.

This is called "Blaming the victim".

You have to explain what you mean about investigating the claims of artists, because I don't see Art as a sitution where any particular claims are made that need investigating.

How would the average member of society get access to any researcher's data in order to check it?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Please quote this person, verbatim.

from R.Parsons:

Because if it is that writing, well, he misses one of the most important differentiations between Art and Science, the oblique right of an artist to lie (outrightly, and known to be that!) in their presentation of a work. As in a completley imaginary landscape scene that has absolutely no comport in reality, can still garner attention, accreditation, and be seen as meritorious.

NO scientist is permitted to hold to any "lie" that cannot be found as properly representing some aspect of reality, with, in this case only the use of the word "lie" being quoted as meaning an unrealized lie sometimes known as "The currently known truth" until Proven otherwise.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If their fudged data were to come to light they would no longer be standing.

Not always true. Often the person bringing the "fudged data" to light is ridiculed back into obscurity because the standing of the "fudger" is widely recognized in comparisome to the person calling their bluff.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is called "Blaming the victim".

Victims are dead. Survivors live. Those who blindly accept the hormone injected beef patties and the chlorine bleach swimming pools and drinking water as safe and normal products without question are not exhibiting good survival skills. At some point, they become victims of their own complacency. Sure, sometimes the calvary comes to the rescue. And sometimes not. There is no blame in this. It is a simple fact.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
You have to explain what you mean about investigating the claims of artists, because I don't see Art as a sitution where any particular claims are made that need investigating.

When an artist depicts a camel with three humps, this is an invitation to believe the artist or to go to source and find out the truth for ourselves. When Da Vinci quickly slapped a landscape behind his Mona Lisa, it was not a true representation of an Italian landscape, yet, being Italian, and raised in Italy, he had a good sense with regard to the general lay of the land and offered a quick representation of an ideal landscape to compliment the smooth gradations that made up the depiction of the merchant's daughter, Mona Lisa. And so, this landscape would not be questioned by the average Italian because it resembled areas that had already been seen in their travels about the country.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How would the average member of society get access to any researcher's data in order to check it?

That is part of the challenge presented to the "average member of society". In fact, I believe some average members of society have relatively recently created something called the "Freedom Of Information Act" to facilitate this challenge. In the case of private companies the challenge is further complicated, but not impossible.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
from R.Parsons:

You mischaracterized, somewhat, what Mr. Robin Parsons said about artists. More about the Art issue below.

Not always true. Often the person bringing the "fudged data" to light is ridiculed back into obscurity because the standing of the "fudger" is widely recognized in comparisome to the person calling their bluff.

I see what you're saying here. This is an explanation for why the fudging doesn't come to light more often. Nevertheless when it does come to light the person loses their standing.

Victims are dead. Survivors live.

Bert Gummer? I'm not sure what is behind the unusually strong assertion here, but victim does not equal dead. I went out to lunch at a restaurant today. Thinking back I must have seen three or four dozen people I could have victimized in one way or another had I been so inclined. If I had it would be my fault, my responsibility, my guilt, not theirs. This is what I'm saying. Do you feel all those people were foolish to leave their homes unarmed?

Those who blindly accept the hormone injected beef patties and the chlorine bleach swimming pools and drinking water as safe and normal products without question are not exhibiting good survival skills.

Reasonable precautions are always in order. Personally, I have a certain range of things I'm particularly carefull about while not being very concerned about other things. I find most people to be like this. Their "thing" is usually idiosynchratic. No one can be so circumspect as to avoid all dangers. Everyone dies in the end.

At some point, they become victims of their own complacency..."
"...There is no blame in this. It is a simple fact.

This is quite a bit less severe than your original:

When the people of a culture is unwilling to independently investigate the claims of their scientists and their artists alike... they deserve whatever balderdash they are fed by these groups.

When an artist depicts a camel with three humps, this is an invitation to believe the artist or to go to source and find out the truth for ourselves.

No. If you react to a three-humped camel this way, you have misunderstood. No self respecting artist would paint a three-humped camel unless he was just about positive everyone who saw the painting was going to know camels have one hump, or two. A three humped camel would be about humor, surprise, shock value, strangeness, anyone of a number of things except deception.

"When Da Vinci quickly slapped a landscape behind his Mona Lisa..."

I didn't get what you were pointing at with this part.

"...something called the "Freedom Of Information Act"

Shred and redact.

-Zooby

 

[quantumcarl]

Zoobyshoe wrote:

I went out to lunch at a restaurant today. Thinking back I must have seen three or four dozen people I could have victimized in one way or another had I been so inclined.

Weird.

 

[iron~orchid]

Government scientists follow ( conform to) the rules of of institutional policies -- Team Player.

Even Independent Scientists depend on Government "grants" for their research funding.

So, here you have Politics competing with the bend of creative "visions" produced by science. You have a scientist who knows what is good within his vision but you have it under-penned by the policies.

I do not think Artists or a Scientist practicing an Art form would have to deal with that factor.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Weird.

What's weird is that you don't seem to think that you too can be(come) "a victim" Personally I don't like the word either, but I none the less realize that, in cases/circumstances in my life, I have been one, and not of 'my choice' either.

Heck I was groped by a woman once, after I had been very verbally very clear that I didn't want to do that with her, didn't like it, but I was put into a "victims position". (it ain't that hard)

 

[iron~orchid]

It is written that if you do not give out "sexual" signals,

-- as in interested in such things --

...you will not attract other's attention in such a way.

So, who is guilty of manipulating the event -- the hidden manifesto or the responding groper ?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by iron~orchid
It is written that if you do not give out "sexual" signals,

-- as in interested in such things --

...you will not attract other's attention in such a way.
WOW CRAP!
So, who is guilty of manipulating the event -- the hidden manifesto or the responding groper ?

SHE WAS! there was NO HIDDEN MANIFESTO, apparently you are not all that aware of just what can be done to you are you, of little actual experiance perhaps?

 

[iron~orchid]

I would say the right blend of energy for projection of sexual signals is an art and a science.

Yes, it must take a lot of experience to perfect'.

Rather than turning it and everyone else off totally, a few trans-formative memories should be held in high esteem during the creation of self values.

Thank you for your view on the subject as I am aware that
it may be the other way around

-- the guy is not manipulating the woman -- !

Women have used the manipulative advantage of knowing about
a male's drive for the temporary sensory peak of the act of sex
through hundreds of years of cultural evolution.

For instance, all great leaders throughout mankind's existence have had emotional
appeal as their source of power.

Women are drawn to the public figure, author, artist, scientist or leader of what what by their own needs to touch and be touched by the one who inspires such strong emotion within them.

One once told me that people are drawn to someone who exudes confidence.