Art or science?

[Squilookle]

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

Again, Science and Art used to go hand in hand in Renaissance. Sacrifice the term "art" and we would have remained in the so-called "Dark Ages", a term that is actually largely discredited by historians nowadays.

And again- art is just a term. As is the Dark Ages. I couldn't care less what historians think it should be called. It's still a period of almost zero technological progress. I also couldn't care less how they grouped names together in the Renaissance. Doesn't mean squat to this debate.

 

[higgs20]

stupid question, our society needs both, art stops us living in a dystopian 1984esc shitbreak of a world and science stops us catching cholera and gets us to work in the morning. you've got to have balance.

Although if I really had to choose; science (I really like not having cholera.)

 

[martin's a madman]

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

You've obviously never studied a science subject then .

"I don't agree with your opinion so I assume that you're uneducated"?

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.

Sorry, but that is an uneducated perspective. Medical science is one SMALL aspect of the sciences, and even then, germs, viruses, diseases, etc, an even smaller group.

Space travel? Fusion power? Robotics? Chemical engineering? Biological Engineering? Altering the human genome alone has potential to revolutionise what it means to be human.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, it's unfortunate that you feel that way.

 

[BrainWalker]

Science is more important, but art is still absolutely important. Science furthers our understanding of our world and our universe, whereas art furthers our understanding of ourselves, and each other.

Artists probably aren't going to discover the cure for cancer or solve the energy crisis, but scientists aren't the first in line fostering social evolution, and they probably aren't writing the songs that help us all get laid.

Seriously though, there's a surprising amount of contempt for art in this thread. Isn't this the forum of an online periodical dealing mostly in coverage of an entertainment medium? A medium that combines the efforts of science (computer engineering) and art (design, writing, music, etc)? A relatively young medium that is still struggling with its identity and whether or not it can be considered a viable form for artistic expression? I wasn't expecting to find any "art is stupid, and anyone who prefers it to science is an idiot" around these parts.

Don't forget, science is important, but it's also generally pretty complicated. Art is much more accessible.

Personally, I like it best when science and art work together and give us things like... well, video games.

 

[brumley53]

Science furthers our ability to make art, sadly most artists dont like new thing's and most scientists are too busy to make art.

 

[Paksenarrion]

You can't have one without the other. Prove me wrong.

ok, cave paintings, where's the science there? and do explain the art in the little circuit experiment everyone does in school

The chemistry of the ink that the cavemen used; what was it made of, and how was it preserved for so long? Please explain that without using science.

Circuit experiment: you've never thought of how electricity works, how it flows and interacts with different mediums, as art?

"Dornach uesci", CAPTCHA? And why the accent above the 'o'?

 

[redgamehunter]

Well, science is just the thing that contains facts we got with the scientific method of finding answers. In other words, we actually don't need to attribute many "scientific" discoveries to science.

Art on the other hand is the representation of any idea in a special way, which in itself makes it more qualified to take the place of the word science.

Where would we be without science? About 70 years ago.
Where would we be without art? ... Colosseum. Really, art, whether music, visual, etc. has always been what entertained people. (Other than mindless violence and... you know.)

 

[flamingjimmy]

If you just mean art as in pictures of stuff and installations then science all the way.

However if you're defining art broadly then I'd be at a loss. I couldn't live without music, but then again we wouldn't be able to get electric guitars without science, so that would be lame. I guess I'd still have to pick art, and I'd have to get into Bach

Also, how broadly are you defining science? If you mean the scientific method then my answer above would apply, but if you're defining science more broadly as 'learning how things work and applying that knowledge' then we wouldn't be able to get any instruments of any kind, so it would all be for naught if I picked art. So I'd have to pick science, and live in a deeply depressing world.

 

[Blue_vision]

Sorry, but that is an uneducated perspective. Medical science is one SMALL aspect of the sciences, and even then, germs, viruses, diseases, etc, an even smaller group.

Space travel? Fusion power? Robotics? Chemical engineering? Biological Engineering? Altering the human genome alone has potential to revolutionise what it means to be human.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, it's unfortunate that you feel that way.

Again, all those things are cool, but they speak little to the human soul. I'm personally finding it unfortunate that you don't seem to appreciate the value of art and creativity. How does space travel, fusion, robotics, or chemical or biological engineering make you a happier person?

I only highlighted Medicine and Biology because they do have the ability to bring true happiness in giving a life or relieving pain on a wide scale. And while it's a tough call, I'd say that arts are better. If there's an analogue, I'd say I'd rather live in 16th century Florence or 11th century Baghdad than I would as a middle class man in Shanghai at the height of the cultural revolution, if that paints any better a picture.

 

[Trolldor]

Now, which one do you think has a more importance in this world?
For without science, sure we would't be here, but where would we be without art?
So, which one would you pursue personally and why?

Why are the two at all seperate?

Art is an expression of the imagination, and nothing fosters the imagination like the discoveries of science.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Both, we need art and science to flourish and survive.
Without science allowing society to progress, art losses its meaning; without art, science has no inspiration to advance.

Look at all the people who've invented some of the most crucial and interesting technology in the past 20 years, they were all inspired by Star Trek and other shows, works of art and media.

 

[kypsilon]

They are both equally important. Science is the result of experimentation and quantitative analysis of our understanding of the world around us. Art is the exploration of the possibility of that which does and might exist around us. The two are not so mutually exclusive that they don't interact in guiding humanity.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Without Science, we wouldn't have the inspiration for Art.
Without Art, we wouldn't have the inspiration for Science.

I could call myself an artist, and so could others. I write a lot of short stories, all of which my friends enjoy. Without science, though, I wouldn't be able to write of a man who seeks revenge on a group of modern day nazis for attacking his mother when he was a boy. We wouldn't be able to write period.
On the other hand, if we didn't write stories of men traveling to other planets, we wouldn't have the imagination of science to attempt such things. We wouldn't try to bring extinct species back to life, or create shuttles to the stars.
Both rely on each other to work as they do today.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

Science is infinitesimally more important. Art looks pretty, science invents new ways of doing things and exploring the world which we have a very limited understanding of already.

 

[The Shade]

I've known scientists who have it down to an art, and I know artists who have it down to a science.

Therefore, the only way to decide is a ceremonial knife fight. Their best man vs. our best man.

(Our best man has a wooden leg with a real foot.)

 

[maturin]

Art made us human long before the scientific method was invented by a handful of people.

Art is the natural expression of imagination, imagination being the thing upon which all human endeavor is dependent.

Imagination is the heartbeat of the human race and art is its pulse. Science is parasitic on that which was already there.

 

[DustyDrB]

If I had to live my life without one, it would be science. Most of the joy I have in life comes by way of art in its many forms. I find meaning in much of art but most often science just leads me to more questions.

In actuality, I am a man of both art and science. I write, make music, study and (lightly now, heavily in the future) practice medicine.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Scientific curiosity and a creative spirit are the two things that define humanity, there's not a choice here that I can imagine making.

More to the point, why would we have to choose?

 

[Astoria]

Personally I'm much more interested in art but I do see that science is important so I say we need to good mixture of both in this world. Life with just science but no art would be dull and predictable. A life without science would be rough and disorganised so you need both.

 

[jovack22]

Science- Most notably physics, due to it applying to EVERYTHING(on some level).

Because our current Biology is based mostly on provably false information...

Let me guess, you majored in physics and are bitter that the biochemistry / biology students are getting most of the research funding from the university.

Most of our current biology is based on vigorously peer-reviewed journals, not provably false information like you're claiming.

If you're thinking biology about biology's flawed theories that served as a stepping stone for later more sound theories, i.e. the theory of evolution, etc, then the same can be said about physics.

The way I see it --
One of the purest forms of philosophies are mathematics, from which physics is strongly based in. Chemistry relies heavily on physics. Biochemistry relies heavily on chemistry, Biology on biochemistry, psychology on biology, social science on psychology... etc

It all fits into a wonderful circle of knowledge.