Art or science?

[SoranMBane]

Science is definitely important in making people's lives more livable, but I suppose it depends on how civilized a particular society is; at the point where the lives of average people can be about self-fulfillment and not simply survival, art and science pretty much become equals, because good works of art can be every bit as important to an individual's well-being as technology (I sure as hell wouldn't be in as good of a mental state as I am without certain works of literature). They also have a tendency to push and inspire each other a lot. Hell, two entire art forms, video games and film, wouldn't exist without technology, while technology that we take for granted, like cellphones or the internet, likely owe their invention to various works of science fiction. I don't know if either is really more relevant. As far as which I'd rather pursue, I'm definitely more of an arts person.

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

I couldn't decide because I'm into both and both require the other in some way so I clicked *other*

 

[wickermole]

n

 

[shreedder]

both are needed. Science provides much more for survival, but art is what makes the world so amazing.

 

[Hader]

snip

Without science, we would likely still be in caves.

Without art, those caves would have been very bland.



I prefer neither, science and art both have their merits. As for myself, I guess I am naturally a bit more partial towards science, though barely. I definitely like art much more, it is the true soul of the human race, and even more so when combined seamlessly with science.

 

[WanderingFool]

I would say Science, but really both are I would say important.

 

[bz316]

Science is much more important. Thanks to science, I don't have to shit in a bucket or save up all my money just to to buy a damn horse...

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Art is defiantly more important.

 

[kidigus]

Science, *****.

 

[hawkeye52]

Science is probably the most important thing that humans have to hand and it furthers our knowledge of the world and how it works. The more we know about this world in which we live the more we can use it to make our own life better.

Art is more of a study into our own personal workings on a level of unconcious thinking and expression of this. Also it is replication of what the world is currently like but only in that state. It can also be used to percieve what we would like to see but don't have the resources make.

So whereas science gets things done by actively exploring our world and learning to master it to the human races own means. Art is more an expression of what we like or dislike about our current world and what we would like to see without ever going forwards to try capture it.

To the people like Leonardo Da Vinci he clearly visualised what he wanted to do came up with an idea of how he wanted to do it then tried complete it. That my friends is science at work and it doesn't matter whether he failed or not its still science since it was an attempt to learn/master our world. If he hadn't tried to do so then it would merely be art.

If we go into the realm of belief (e.g. religion) then art has a significant effect there since there is no way to disprove or prove something unless you have the means to do so therefore science has no duristiction here. Therefore art reigns supreme and can shape the ideas that people have whether they are truth or not (e.g. what god looks like or the fact that jesus is always displayed as white and european looking despite the fact that he was almost certainly tanned and most likely more arabian looking).

So art can give us a clear direction of what to think if we have no other direction but science will always be better as a measure of truth since it is based on objective facts rather then subjective beliefs.

Plus scientists during the Renaissance in Italy were always most likely to be artists since they were the most forward thinkers of that time since science had not been fully established during that point as its own proffesion and the only other way to do it then that would be to follow through the church which would censor ideas they don't like which run counter to the bible (such as Roger Bacon who was placed under house arrest by the church) or even some free scientists completely seperate of the church were placed in prison because of their ideas such as Galileo.

Although this might be making for a very biased argument towards science i do acknowledge as i said earlier that art is of use since we would otherwise be like computers if we did everything on science. i.e. we would be very good at doing things but have no direction to go to after we sort out all our deficiancies. Whereas with art we could find new areas that we had not conceptualised at all. But this sort of falls short when you look at the sheer number of things we have created or discovered by accident by having a hole in a theory and exploring it and discovering something completely new. This is especially so in more complicated things like in the discovery of Anti matter which was found out about because of a certain mathmatical rule.

So overall art might have helped as a catalyst to help science get going so to speak during the renaissance but now science is perpetuating itself. With so many unknowns out in the field we won't need art for a long long time since we know that there are unknowns to make known and contribute to the field of science and hopefully either just gain more knowledge or to make human lives much better. Also it could be classified that what art helped back in the day that science was still a fledgling field could be classed as more entrepreneurism these days since everyone has access to technology which was given to us by science to create new things.

Also one last thing to consider. The rate of which science has been endorsed and increased by was steady up until the dark ages until progressive thinking in art helped push away this feeling of censorship which then kickstarted science at a steady rate until around Isaac Newtons time where scientific method was fully implemented in the scientific community based upon empirical evidence where it increased exponentially at a massive rate and it is still sky rocketing whereas if you look at modern day art it can be counted as good but nothing like the master pieces of say Da vinci or Michelangelo and nowhere near as forward thinking since science has taken over that pursuit.

Also you could just take this view though. That a pure scientist would never be able to do the job of a pure artist in this day and age and vice versa since both fields have been specialised and developed so much as to create a barrier between them that requires a life time of work to achieve the best results on either end of the spectrum.

 

[Extraintrovert]

If Girl Genius has taught me anything, and it hasn't, it is that SCIENCE is the answer to everything.

 

[TWRule]

Actually isn't Philosophy considered the Father of Science? I thought Science grew from natural philosophy and it's a good thing others didn't find science unnecessary or exhausting or you wouldn't be able to complain about it on your computer or play your games.

Science achieves. art can only inspire.

Indeed, you could, from a certain perspective, consider philosophy the father of science - but they are still quite separate entities, just like any other father and son. You could also argue that art is a mark of the philosophical/spiritual development of a society.

I did not mean to say that science proper is tedious and exhausting, but what people call science nowadays seems to be. Setting arbitrary boundaries to test by, collecting extraneous bits of data, chiseling out the most minute area of expertise to call yourself an authority in...Of course, not all scientists get caught up in these things.

Achieves what and how? Science is only science insofar as it deals in mathematical relations. Art is only art insofar as it deals with the empathetic relations between all human beings. Either way, their dealing with the absolute is where true progress ought to be measured. It's one realm of human understanding versus another. -Invention- makes our lives easier, but that's simply a matter of practicality rather than any meaningful 'progress' if said progress is to be measured by human understanding or ethical growth. Hence my "in what way are we judging importance?" question.

 

[Nicarus]

I'd go with science because...

1.) Make really cool technological stuff (like computers you put on your wrist).
2.) Better technology can also create better art. Seriously, anime and video games today look outstanding thanks to high-spec computer software.

 

[TiefBlau]

Art can be a science, and science can be an art.

Regardless, I prefer science, if only because I dwell on the logical.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Art. Science is good, but doesn't do nearly as much for the soul for as many people as art does.

Fortunately we have science so we can take care of the body, so art can do what it can for the soul afterward.

I can see why science and art are separate in this situation, since science is very exact and specific and realistic; whereas art is often vague and subtle, and yet still very stimulating.

 

[Slenn]

I'd say both. I personally don't like the dichotomy between art and science. Wasn't it Einstein who once said "Imagination is more powerful than knowledge." ? And besides that, both the right and left sides of our brains are essentially needed in order to understand the world fully. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Science, otherwise I wouldn't be in my third year as a physics major. But the creative side in myself can't help but just daydream and imagine stuff up, which is part of how most scientific theories come around. Sure it may not look like art in itself, but it's the imaginative side that helps scientists out in the long run.

That's my two cents.

 

[Squilookle]

Art is just a label. You can have entertainment, visual stimuli and works of fiction without them being labelled as 'art'. Videogames, anyone?

Sacrifice the term 'art' and you lose nothing. Sacrifice the sciences and we're all back in the Dark Ages.