Science and Art: which of the two?

[Kyriakos]

This question was conceived, or rather made sort of current, in another thread, namely if science or art is the most cerebral, potentially most intellectual occupation of a refined individual.

My own claim was that while science seems to be at least equally able to form intricate ideas, it appears that there those ideas have to be based (unless they are hypotheseis) on existent metaphorical pillars which hold them. Of course every now and then an intuitive great mathematician can arrive and leave a hypothesis, without proving it, but appearing to be correct nonetheless from practical/experimental data accumulated for it.

This general dependence of science on forms, patterns and developments already existent limits its scope historically, in relation to art, for art can have a vast depth already in the cave drawings (for example it has been theorized that at least some cave drawings were an attempt of animistic early humans to pray for a good hunt; and this is just the simple summation of that idea, and of just one idea which appears to be interesting by itself to me). Of course art too can be progressing, for example painting in the classical era of the realist style was founded as much on talent as it was on actual mathematical principles and calculations, and thus too has a partly specific historical position as well, like science.

However art seems to me to be able to include (either consciously, but usually not consciously) patterns, themes, even "equations" (by which i mean set relations between variables, the variables being objects or ideas in art) which can be of significantly higher level than what has been covered already in literary theory (which is poor, but can be argued in a way to be the relative of scientific theory, the analogous meta-glance on the phenomenon itself).

I stated that while one could theoretically even include science itself in art (i gave the example of a person proving the Riemann hypothesis in a work of art, utilizing the work of art to describe the proof) in science i do not see how one could define art in such an immediate way. Could the motifs existent in Kafka's work be portrayed in equations of the mathematical kind? Probably yes, but not as science is now. Maybe in a golden era of science all of the arts will become one with science, all will be one phenomenon in different appearances, and truth will be sought by all, scientists and artists.

Anyway, not sure if people here are really interested in such questions, but i will stop this opening post here and wait to see if anyone wants to participate in a relevant discussion

 

[Cutlass]

I think art is more emotional rather than intellectual. So science would be the more intellectual.

 

[Perfection]

 

[Kyriakos]

I think art is more emotional rather than intellectual. So science would be the more intellectual.

Although art can be mostly emotional, it can be intellectual as well, as many philosophical novels show (eg L' Etranger). I think that art, to sum up my OP, has better access to intuitive thought, and thus is in a better position to transcend the current level of the human development as a whole. Science seems pretty much like an edifice that is built on calculated relations with its past, although a next step can bring the erasing of the past, and its metamorphosis into something new.

 

[Theov]

The end

 

[Tarquelne]

I'd say art is potentially the most intellectual. But that backward-looking structure of science gives a great framework to build on. A fairly high level of cerebration is both demanded and more likely to be rewarded. The gap between intellectual potential and realization is going to tend to be much smaller in science, while in art it's often huge.

OTOH pure math arguably combines the best of both art and science. OTTH, pure mathematics arguably isn't a science at all. Technically speaking.

Philosophy combines the leaden-tendencies of science with the fuzzy-thinking common in art. Obviously.

 

[Dumanios]

Why not have both?

 

[Cutlass]

Although art can be mostly emotional, it can be intellectual as well, as many philosophical novels show (eg L' Etranger). I think that art, to sum up my OP, has better access to intuitive thought, and thus is in a better position to transcend the current level of the human development as a whole. Science seems pretty much like an edifice that is built on calculated relations with its past, although a next step can bring the erasing of the past, and its metamorphosis into something new.

In science, they say we can reach the stars because we stand on the shoulders of giants. So yes, much of science is built on the work of those that went before. But that doesn't mean that there isn't great thought and great creativity that goes into the work of science. There are breakthroughs all the time. And they come from the imagination as well as the learning of the scientists.

Art can say the same thing. Little of art is truly unique. It builds on the techniques and skills of those that went before as much as it does on the pure imagination of the artist.

 

[MobBoss]

This question was conceived, or rather made sort of current, in another thread, namely if science or art is the most cerebral, potentially most intellectual occupation of a refined individual.

My own claim was that while science seems to be at least equally able to form intricate ideas, it appears that there those ideas have to be based (unless they are hypotheseis) on existent metaphorical pillars which hold them. Of course every now and then an intuitive great mathematician can arrive and leave a hypothesis, without proving it, but appearing to be correct nonetheless from practical/experimental data accumulated for it.

This general dependence of science on forms, patterns and developments already existent limits its scope historically, in relation to art, for art can have a vast depth already in the cave drawings (for example it has been theorized that at least some cave drawings were an attempt of animistic early humans to pray for a good hunt; and this is just the simple summation of that idea, and of just one idea which appears to be interesting by itself to me). Of course art too can be progressing, for example painting in the classical era of the realist style was founded as much on talent as it was on actual mathematical principles and calculations, and thus too has a partly specific historical position as well, like science.

However art seems to me to be able to include (either consciously, but usually not consciously) patterns, themes, even "equations" (by which i mean set relations between variables, the variables being objects or ideas in art) which can be of significantly higher level than what has been covered already in literary theory (which is poor, but can be argued in a way to be the relative of scientific theory, the analogous meta-glance on the phenomenon itself).

I stated that while one could theoretically even include science itself in art (i gave the example of a person proving the Riemann hypothesis in a work of art, utilizing the work of art to describe the proof) in science i do not see how one could define art in such an immediate way. Could the motifs existent in Kafka's work be portrayed in equations of the mathematical kind? Probably yes, but not as science is now. Maybe in a golden era of science all of the arts will become one with science, all will be one phenomenon in different appearances, and truth will be sought by all, scientists and artists.

Anyway, not sure if people here are really interested in such questions, but i will stop this opening post here and wait to see if anyone wants to participate in a relevant discussion

You know its been awhile, but isnt one left brain while the other right brain?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I think that that idea of left brain vs. right brain is no longer considered useful.

 

[SeattleMist]

Science. Most artsy types today are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals.

 

[Fifty]

My own claim was that while science seems to be at least equally able to form intricate ideas, it appears that there those ideas have to be based (unless they are hypotheseis) on existent metaphorical pillars which hold them. Of course every now and then an intuitive great mathematician can arrive and leave a hypothesis, without proving it, but appearing to be correct nonetheless from practical/experimental data accumulated for it.

This general dependence of science on forms, patterns and developments already existent limits its scope historically, in relation to art, for art can have a vast depth already in the cave drawings (for example it has been theorized that at least some cave drawings were an attempt of animistic early humans to pray for a good hunt; and this is just the simple summation of that idea, and of just one idea which appears to be interesting by itself to me). Of course art too can be progressing, for example painting in the classical era of the realist style was founded as much on talent as it was on actual mathematical principles and calculations, and thus too has a partly specific historical position as well, like science.

However art seems to me to be able to include (either consciously, but usually not consciously) patterns, themes, even "equations" (by which i mean set relations between variables, the variables being objects or ideas in art) which can be of significantly higher level than what has been covered already in literary theory (which is poor, but can be argued in a way to be the relative of scientific theory, the analogous meta-glance on the phenomenon itself).

I stated that while one could theoretically even include science itself in art (i gave the example of a person proving the Riemann hypothesis in a work of art, utilizing the work of art to describe the proof) in science i do not see how one could define art in such an immediate way. Could the motifs existent in Kafka's work be portrayed in equations of the mathematical kind? Probably yes, but not as science is now. Maybe in a golden era of science all of the arts will become one with science, all will be one phenomenon in different appearances, and truth will be sought by all, scientists and artists.

Anyway, not sure if people here are really interested in such questions, but i will stop this opening post here and wait to see if anyone wants to participate in a relevant discussion

Your characterization of science and the process of doing scientific work is wrong.

Your characterization of art and the process of creating art is wrong.

The methodology by which you attempt to go about answering this question is wrong.

The formulation of the question itself is hopelessly vague.

Much else of what you say above and in the thread is pretty much nonsensical, to the point of not meriting a rebuttal.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'd say art is potentially the most intellectual. But that backward-looking structure of science gives a great framework to build on. A fairly high level of cerebration is both demanded and more likely to be rewarded. The gap between intellectual potential and realization is going to tend to be much smaller in science, while in art it's often huge.

OTOH pure math arguably combines the best of both art and science. OTTH, pure mathematics arguably isn't a science at all. Technically speaking.

Philosophy combines the leaden-tendencies of science with the fuzzy-thinking common in art. Obviously.

It is said that all sciences sprung from proto-philosophical thought. It might seem like a tautology, since philosophy means "friendship of wisdom", but i think it is interesting, if that is the case, that a non-hard science brought first the seed of what later became the scientific method. Also philosophy often is ahead of science in new ways of examining the world, both the internal and external.

 

[Ayn Rand]

This is an interesting yet potentially very complicated question But here is my attempt to formulate a starting position: Art and science are both relevant to two distinct projects - science is related to objective reality, and art is related to human experience in often subjective ways.

In pure intellectual terms, art can be designed in ways that do not reflect any underlying reality, because it is a product of and for consciousness - it can therefore be complex or intricate or abstract in any way one can conceive of, without needing to shape itself to the form that reality takes [as science does]. One can therefore make it artificially intricate simply by wishing it to be that way - yet such intricacy may well be purely trivial.

However, the human project begins and ends in reality, not just in the inner World - even though we are "being" it is not the case that we are pure being, independent of any external reality. Therefore our being is governed by necessity, not just by artistic indulgence, and so the demands and challenges of science are an essential part of the "test" of making us human. World knowledge is therefore a form of artistic knowledge, but an entirely unanticipated one perhaps

Thus, if the spirit of artistic purpose is to transcendentally grasp some higher, previously unknown state of awareness or experience, then the grasping of objective reality is a unique and valuable project and goal of knowledge [in parallel to the goal of grasping one's "self" in some way through art/philosophy]. It is distinct from the artistic movement to pure self knowledge, because reality is an unexpected imposition that the self [if it were in eternal isolation] could never have conceived of nor developed alone. For that reason, I think science is more sublime, more complex and a greater expression of self-awareness and self-will than art can ever be.

 

[Leoreth]

In my opinion science and art require drastically different forms of "intellect" that it's impossible to compare them to each other.

Although I think I'm not going too far in saying that the number of artists that have an actually intellectual approach to their work is rather small (not counting those annoying authors etc. who only spout pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo to make themselves important), while most scientists are required to have an intellectual stance on their occupation.

 

[innonimatu]

In my opinion science and art require drastically different forms of "intellect" that it's impossible to compare them to each other.

I strongly disagree. There are many, many examples of important scientists who were also artists (musicians, composers, writers, painters...).

 

[Leoreth]

I never said that both kinds of intellect can't be present in the same person.

 

[classical_hero]

"Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for."

 

[Mango Elephant]

I think art is more intellectual than science. Science is mostly knowledge and logic based, I believe, and while I'm sure it's very difficult to learn science, I don't believe it actually works your mind as much as art does. Art is about expressing patterns, expressing your own ideas in a way that makes sense to external viewers, and science is basically learning things and using logic and math, and since logic and math are universal, it means that logic and math are much easier to express because countless of people have done it before and you only need copy their example to succeed. On the other hand, no one has the same philosophies or ideas, and so expressing your own philosophies and ideas in inherently more difficult than expressing logic and math, and that, I believe, is what counts and makes art more intellectual than science.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I think art is more intellectual than science.

Not sure if serious...