Art or science?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think they really go quite well with each other. But I also believe art is quite Dependant on science. From how to make paper and paints to cameras and computer programs.
I don't count it as art, and I don't know why it needs to be called as such to justify it's existence. To me those things are entertainment and art is just pictures and sculptures and so forth. I'm sure you can have "artistic" films and so forth, but would anyone count, say, Iron Man as art? I sure wouldn't.Fiend13 said:
Blue_vision said:"I don't agree with your opinion so I assume that you're uneducated"?zhoominator said:You've obviously never studied a science subject thenBlue_vision said:.
Yes, I've studied science. And while I get a kick out of the insanity of quantum mechanics or the awesome moment when I realized what light actually was, I still far prefer music or a good movie.
Not to mention that science doesn't really have anywhere to go anymore for the average populace. I'm not going to tell scientists that they should stop working (really, they shouldn't! It's awesome stuff that they do for the scientific community and indirectly help arts and influence philosophy,) but aside from the few diseases that we have left, there's not much that technology can do to legitimately improve human lifestyles. More, better arts though? It could do wonders.
Without wanting to offend but seriously thats just so....well.....wrong. Lets see:
There are a LOT of applications that current science can be used to do stuff: From nano science (from example for sun protection), to chemistry (just think of your Laptop batteries), physics (Lasers are everywhere these days), biology (do you know what diabetes is? Well people suffering that would die if it weren't for genetically modified bacteria making insuline for these people). And there is still so much that is currently in development that could help humanity AND people in their daily lives: Fusion Power, Quantum Computing and Nano-Tubes just to name a few...
Seriously...boy: You DO know that there are only a handful of diseases that could be wiped from the face of this planet in contrast to the hundreds and thousands still existing? And you DO know that every year your winterly flu is in fact a completely new disease since it constantly changes it surface structure with which it can dock onto your cells and infect them? And you DO know that even if there weren't diseases caused by bacteria or viruses there are always genetic diseases, random mutations and organ failures that could end your life just as well?
And doesn't already the need to cope with all these kinds of diseases to save peoples lives mandate the necessity and importance of science alone?
I doubt that the Mona Lisa could save a cancer patient from dying no matter how beautiful and intriguing it is. Granted, the debate wherever we need ALL scientific progress, especially if its used only for consumption is a philosophical and, more importantly, legitimate one. However, to deny the obvious improvement that science has brought to the world and can bring in the future is just preposterous.
EDIT: Also for the record: I'am, in fact, a scientist so I cannot help but being biased about this. But seriously: THINK before you write such obviously wrong statements.
A
They seem to be interdepedant...
Science created the pages the book was written on and the Binary that the game is encoded in. Science got us out of the caves. You need art but you need science to make the art.Fiend13 said:
They seem to be interdepedant...
People need personal expression. Art is necessary to society for that reason.
At the same time, we need to advance as a species. This is where science comes in.
Basically, we need both. Leave one out and we're screwed.
At the same time, we need to advance as a species. This is where science comes in.
Basically, we need both. Leave one out and we're screwed.
Always a mature way to handle a debate.Dajosch said:
Did I ever say that science is stupid and shouldn't exist? No. I'm just saying that the things that truly make people happy are, for the most part, "arts," and I would prefer a society that had arts but no science over a society that had science without art.
Umm, why did you quote me as saying that? I never posted that. This is who you want to speak to.Blue_vision said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.261325.9855074
I'm a science student (well, Maths) who wants to be an art student instead (but there's no way I'm dropping out now and wasting the past three years of my life). And I want art ladies rather than science ladies. Colour me weird, but I find something much more attractive about a girl reading liberal arts books in a coffee shop, with messy hair, wearing really quirky clothes and listening to jazz and obscure indie folk, than a girl in a white coat with glasses and neat hair carrying a bunch of physics books around and generally looking like a librarian or a scientist.zhoominator said:
Admittedly both can be pretty sexy, I simply prefer the 'art' look rather than the 'science' look:
Both are hot, but I know which one I prefer... ;D.
Anyway, as for what the OP says, although I love art more than science, science is certainly more important. If it wasn't for science, after all, we wouldn't have most of what we consider 'art' nowadays. And life would be a lot more shitty without the innovations science has brought about. Though I'd still prefer to be learning the drums and borrowing my brother's guitar, and making films and learning about photography, than being stuck in a boring lecture theatre learning about complex analysis and the geometry of n-dimensional spaces...
It might just be me but it would be hard to be happy when you're dieing at 35 from an excruciating illness that science can prevent, or starving because you don't have science to preserve your food.Blue_vision said:
Science is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, more important to the world as a whole.
But after picking up guitar, games and anime, and with how much I enjoy the arts as a whole, I think to say it would be sorely missed is an understatement of goldeye proportions.
But after picking up guitar, games and anime, and with how much I enjoy the arts as a whole, I think to say it would be sorely missed is an understatement of goldeye proportions.
That really depends on your definition of "art".
Take the writing of philosophy, for example. I would (begrudgingly) consider that a science, while others might call it an art.
If you're talking about that, then the two aren't incredibly different. Inseparable, in some cases, although many fields require a bit of training in them to appreciate the art of it. It's like computer science: beautiful code to programmers is just words on a screen to the layman.
However, if you're referring to things like music and painting as "art" then science takes the lead by a long shot. Those things are nice, yes, but their usefulness is tiny compared to science.
For all people say about art affecting the "soul", it's science that makes us human. Our ability to observe, understand, develop, and create things logically is what has gotten us this far, and everything else is just so much salad dressing.
Take the writing of philosophy, for example. I would (begrudgingly) consider that a science, while others might call it an art.
If you're talking about that, then the two aren't incredibly different. Inseparable, in some cases, although many fields require a bit of training in them to appreciate the art of it. It's like computer science: beautiful code to programmers is just words on a screen to the layman.
However, if you're referring to things like music and painting as "art" then science takes the lead by a long shot. Those things are nice, yes, but their usefulness is tiny compared to science.
For all people say about art affecting the "soul", it's science that makes us human. Our ability to observe, understand, develop, and create things logically is what has gotten us this far, and everything else is just so much salad dressing.
I have no idea how that happenedSL33TBL1ND said:
M'badSure, I could be dying from a terrible illness without science. But I think I'd be happier to life a fulfilling life aided by wonderful art and have it end at 35, rather than have an art-less life and live to be 80 or something.Chris Booth said:
I think both are essentially linked, and one is not more important than the other. I talked to my orthopedic surgeon about why he does what he does, and he sees the human body as a piece of art, rather than bones and blood and tissue. Art is science, and science is art. You can't have one without the other.
Also, you said we wouldn't be here without science, but I don't think we would be here without art either. I see love as an art, music is an art, color, passion, all these other things that inspire and drive us to do things. We may be here by scientific methods, but we are alive for art.
Also, you said we wouldn't be here without science, but I don't think we would be here without art either. I see love as an art, music is an art, color, passion, all these other things that inspire and drive us to do things. We may be here by scientific methods, but we are alive for art.