Why God Why: Art, Science and endless arguments

[hypothetical fact]

Art can be anything that creates emotion, Science is understanding the universe. Excuse me if I find art completely pointless when you can get a light that turns on when someone walks in the room be called an exhibit. At least those studies that show that people who drink coffee get an energy boost or that the kitchen is the deadliest room in the house establish something for future students. Even if that something is just more references for a bibliography.

 

[Berethond]

Wow.. I really had no idea there was any 'tension' between Art and Science. As a muscian I have to acknowledge the scientific side to my art and even though I don't understand that side very well, I am aware of how important it is.

In short.

Why can't we just get along.

Nevar. It's a fight to the death.

In all seriousness, how scientific is music? I know there is a method, and harmonics, and tones, etc. but my question is why do you think it qualifies as scientific instead of it being a very elaborate and sophisticated method, but not necessarily scientific?

PS: Yes, it is an actual question, not a rethoric one.

Music is ridiculously scientific.

Mathematicians are still learning things about Calculus from Bach, for cryin' out loud.

EDIT
Labyrinth, must you always post these at 3:00AM local time?
Couldn't you post them at a more reasonable hour?

 

[fulano]

Wow.. I really had no idea there was any 'tension' between Art and Science. As a muscian I have to acknowledge the scientific side to my art and even though I don't understand that side very well, I am aware of how important it is.

In short.

Why can't we just get along.

Nevar. It's a fight to the death.

In all seriousness, how scientific is music? I know there is a method, and harmonics, and tones, etc. but my question is why do you think it qualifies as scientific instead of it being a very elaborate and sophisticated method, but not necessarily scientific?

PS: Yes, it is an actual question, not a rethoric one.

Music is ridiculously scientific.

Mathematicians are still learning things about Calculus from Bach, for cryin' out loud.

No. They aren't learning calculus from Bach. You don't know what they're talking about.

One thing to say is that you can apply a sophisticated mathematical method to better understand music and another is that from tones, frequencies and harmonies you can learn a mathematical descipline.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you are terribly misguided. But then again, you can always prove me wrong which would be rather educational for me.

 

[Berethond]

Wow.. I really had no idea there was any 'tension' between Art and Science. As a muscian I have to acknowledge the scientific side to my art and even though I don't understand that side very well, I am aware of how important it is.

In short.

Why can't we just get along.

Nevar. It's a fight to the death.

In all seriousness, how scientific is music? I know there is a method, and harmonics, and tones, etc. but my question is why do you think it qualifies as scientific instead of it being a very elaborate and sophisticated method, but not necessarily scientific?

PS: Yes, it is an actual question, not a rethoric one.

Music is ridiculously scientific.

Mathematicians are still learning things about Calculus from Bach, for cryin' out loud.

No. They aren't learning calculus from Bach. You don't know what they're talking about.

One thing to say is that you can apply a sophisticated mathematical method to better understand music and another is that from tones, frequencies and harmonies you can learn a mathematical descipline.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you are terribly misguided. But then again, you can always prove me wrong which would be rather educational for me.

<url=http://www.kunstderfuge.com/theory/dentler.htm>Wallis learned almost all of what he knew about conic sections & such (Which greatly is how Newton came up with calculus) by studying Bach and Mizler's music.

 

[Labyrinth]

Labyrinth, must you always post these at 3:00AM local time?
Couldn't you post them at a more reasonable hour?

I'm afraid not, though you're welcome to move to a more sensible location when it comes to timezones.

*Snip*

I'm speaking as a violinist of many years here. The maths in terms of movement on the instrument itself is subconscious, like the maths required to catch a ball and the rest. Where it comes into play is when figuring out the passage of music itself, how the notes fit together, how they interrelate and which movements are hence appropriate to use.

 

[Dys]

As an engineering student, I can point out in a second why we think the arts are horseshit. At uni, in second year I have ~=24 contact hours (and 1 girl in our course at the moment), I have friends doing arts who have less than 12 contact hours (and about 30 girls for every guy). They seem to do very little actual work.

How can you expect us to take it seriously when it's so easy to fake? Sure we need culture and science itself would not work without a somewhat open minded or artistic approach, but when we get to the point where the most studied university course is general arts (which includes such gems as "wine tasting") we can't help but think it's a little pointless.

 

[Anarchemitis]

This sort of debate I enjoy much more than Science vs. Religion. Mostly because applying Scientific reason to something that is irrational, like Love, makes no sense.
Lessover, this thread is not about Religion.

Art and Science should go hand in hand, like they used to in days of old.

There are no artists it sometimes seems in the world of Science, just scanners and cameras.

 

[fulano]

Labyrinth, must you always post these at 3:00AM local time?
Couldn't you post them at a more reasonable hour?

I'm afraid not, though you're welcome to move to a more sensible location when it comes to timezones.

*Snip*

I'm speaking as a violinist of many years here. The maths in terms of movement on the instrument itself is subconscious, like the maths required to catch a ball and the rest. Where it comes into play is when figuring out the passage of music itself, how the notes fit together, how they interrelate and which movements are hence appropriate to use.

I'm sorry but math at its core just ain't the same as counting. They are movements; you are arching, waving, pressing chords, releasing chords, taking account of your timing, etc. You can explain all that in mathematical terms but they aren't exactly mathematical. Math comes later.

PD: I thought your gig was painting. Good for you and congrats. I tried violin for a semester but my greatest hit was, and still remains, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

Wow.. I really had no idea there was any 'tension' between Art and Science. As a muscian I have to acknowledge the scientific side to my art and even though I don't understand that side very well, I am aware of how important it is.

In short.

Why can't we just get along.

Nevar. It's a fight to the death.

In all seriousness, how scientific is music? I know there is a method, and harmonics, and tones, etc. but my question is why do you think it qualifies as scientific instead of it being a very elaborate and sophisticated method, but not necessarily scientific?

PS: Yes, it is an actual question, not a rethoric one.

Music is ridiculously scientific.

Mathematicians are still learning things about Calculus from Bach, for cryin' out loud.

No. They aren't learning calculus from Bach. You don't know what they're talking about.

One thing to say is that you can apply a sophisticated mathematical method to better understand music and another is that from tones, frequencies and harmonies you can learn a mathematical descipline.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you are terribly misguided. But then again, you can always prove me wrong which would be rather educational for me.

<url=http://www.kunstderfuge.com/theory/dentler.htm>Wallis learned almost all of what he knew about conic sections & such (Which greatly is how Newton came up with calculus) by studying Bach and Mizler's music.

Look. I've read the link you sent me and I can't for the life of me equate it to what you are telling me.

The guy did not learn the conics from music. He went away and learned the conics, which were already there thanks to the pythagoreans, because he wanted to make sense of a specific piece that was written in that context. The piece was like an enigma for him, and he cracked by learning math. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that proves your point.

Another thing I have contention with is your understanding of the origins of calculus. You can trace it back to ancient times if you so wish.

Also, Newton didn't invent calculus explicitly trying to understand music, and neither did Leibniz when he came up with the same thing as Newton on his own. That's...just bogus, what you said.

But what Leibniz said was: For indeed, there is nothing in the intellect which was not in the senses, except the intellect itself. Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.

And that is a beautiful thing. Your brain is made in a very specific way that performs in a manner which can be explained mathematically. And that also involves music, but for that to happen one has to have math.

Music was doing fine before math came along to meddle with it. One cannot derive a different, new kind of math from music lest some kind of different physical phenomenon is being considered other than the macroscopic ones already known to everyone(periodic pressure oscillations in a medium).

 

[godevit]

It's beginning to be tedious, every week or so you people begin talking about god & argue.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject to many of you but come on this cannot go for ever.


Or is it??!

 

[antipunt]

Haha, interesting topic indeed.

My take on it is this: I've never really seen a (major) clash between art and science before. In fact, a lot of my profs think science is 'beautiful' or that evolution is kind of like a 'work of art'. You kinda get what I'm saying?

The real schism that I've seen is Science vs the Humanities (Philosophy, English, etc.) Haha, this is especially apparent in college campuses. Science majors think humanity-majors are fratboys and jobless, whereas Humanity-majors think scientists are anti-social lab-dwellers.

tl;dr, 90% of the time, you support what -you- are =P

 

[Knonsense]

I think they should meet up and be friends. I know it's possible, just think about the Mandelbrot Set.

I think if Science and Art were bridged then we'd have one of two things.

• A perfect society where we can solve every problem with ScienceArt
  Or
  A screwed up place like Rapture in Bioshock

I reckon it's worth the risk.

But if science and art were to merge, then mad science and mad art would merge.

And then we would have things like this:

Spoiler

DO YOU WANT THAT?

 

[fulano]

It's beginning to be tedious, every week or so you people begin talking about god & argue.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject to many of you but come on this cannot go for ever.


Or is it??!

If only for utilitarian reasons, it's good to get into debates. that way you learn to order the way you want to say stuff, and who knows, you may well be corrected by someone else. Whether a topic is sensitive or not shouldn't atter as long as people don't go all out and become disrespectful.

 

[Labyrinth]

It's beginning to be tedious, every week or so you people begin talking about god & argue.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject to many of you but come on this cannot go for ever.


Or is it??!

This isn't a thread about God. You might want to actually read the OP some time.

I'm sorry but math at its core just ain't the same as counting. They are movements; you are arching, waving, pressing chords, releasing chords, taking account of your timing, etc. You can explain all that in mathematical terms but they aren't exactly mathematical. Math comes later.

PD: I thought your gig was painting. Good for you and congrats. I tried violin for a semester but my greatest hit was, and still remains, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

Timing is beyond counting, and it is very much mathematical. Understanding how the different lengths and pitches of notes fit together requires maths to be applied. The crux of the matter is that music is not pure maths, but applied maths. It doesn't make it any less mathematical.

And my gig's pretty much whatever. I'm better at drawing than painting, for example.

 

[fulano]

It's beginning to be tedious, every week or so you people begin talking about god & argue.
I understand that this is a sensitive subject to many of you but come on this cannot go for ever.


Or is it??!

This isn't a thread about God. You might want to actually read the OP some time.

I'm sorry but math at its core just ain't the same as counting. They are movements; you are arching, waving, pressing chords, releasing chords, taking account of your timing, etc. You can explain all that in mathematical terms but they aren't exactly mathematical. Math comes later.

PD: I thought your gig was painting. Good for you and congrats. I tried violin for a semester but my greatest hit was, and still remains, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

Timing is beyond counting, and it is very much mathematical. Understanding how the different lengths and pitches of notes fit together requires maths to be applied. The crux of the matter is that music is not pure maths, but applied maths. It doesn't make it any less mathematical.

And my gig's pretty much whatever. I'm better at drawing than painting, for example.

I'm sorry, but how, exactly, the discerning between vibrations of mechanical systems and a given time interval between them constitute math is a little beyond me.

When you write music, you are not writing math. You are writing music, which is what I just told you: vibrations of mechanical systems at a specified frequency(sound), and time intervals. It is a system that can be explained mathematically but that doesn't mean it is math. Music is a product of our imput into our environment, much the same way as grabbing a rock and slamming it against a dog's head repeatedly(though with much more associated prestige).

I'm gonna use an offbeat example so just humor me for a moment: In the future we may be able to mathematically specify a physical circuit, or a software program to emulate said circuit, and that given circuit will be patterned exactly after a human brain. That brain will be able to do what you do, feel what you feel, etc. Now, you have a solid case to say that the circuit processes information in a way that follows mathematical specifications because that's what was used to design it, and you could say "Sure, that's math," and that will be okay.

Now that we have our circuit in place let's wire it to something like, say, a mechanical arm, and ask it to perform an action, and so, our circuit taps once on a given surface. Then we tell it to do it twice, and Skynet does it(yes, that's its name now); then we tell Skynet to do it at varied intervals and Skynet gets annoyed, but still does it(apparently it doesn't like to be told what to do), and now we have a rhythm.

Besides asking Skynet to amuse us like a dog, one would have to consider whether or not that constant tapping was implicitly mathematical and not, just, well, tapping.

Of course, we could go and elaborate on the format of the tapping. What the overall frequency of the taps was or whether it changed, how loud each tap was, etc. But does that make the whole set of taps from beginning to end mathematical or are we just assigning that property a posteriori?

Or isn't it more mathemathical the fact that Skynet is pissed now?


Our brains function a certain way due to our evolution and the laws of physics, and it can be said that the way we experience the world is in those terms, and we can do that using math.

If music in itself is math, or applied math, then so are the noises of an exploding bomb, an exploding head, a crumbling building, a series of bitchslaps, etc. All those are comprised of a series of microscopic processes happening very fast, and each making a small disturbance in the environment that add up to a macroscopic level which we in turn interpret as said noise. If so, then it would all be a matter of taste.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I never really heard about an academic fanboy war between science and art untill this topic, and I really don't get it. One isn't excluding another, and they barely have anything to do with eachother. I see no ground over wich they can even fight. Sounds like pure fanboyism to me. I mean, Da Vinci mixed the 2 together pretty well, as someone above me rightfully said with thpse beautifull drawings. Art can help science, science can help art. What's the big deal?

 

[Labyrinth]

If music in itself is math, or applied math, then so are the noises of an exploding bomb, an exploding head, a crumbling building, a series of bitchslaps, etc. All those are comprised of a series of microscopic processes happening very fast, and each making a small disturbance in the environment that add up to a macroscopic level which we in turn interpret as said noise. If so, then it would all be a matter of taste.

Does that make sense to you?

This is where the distinction between noise and music comes into play. Music is mathematical. The sound of explosions not so much.

 

[fulano]

If music in itself is math, or applied math, then so are the noises of an exploding bomb, an exploding head, a crumbling building, a series of bitchslaps, etc. All those are comprised of a series of microscopic processes happening very fast, and each making a small disturbance in the environment that add up to a macroscopic level which we in turn interpret as said noise. If so, then it would all be a matter of taste.

Does that make sense to you?

This is where the distinction between noise and music comes into play. Music is mathematical. The sound of explosions not so much.

You could easily make the case for it being otherwise. You can easily explain the phenomenon of the noise using pretty much the exact same kind of math you use to describe music. I don't see why you insist on them being different.

Whether or not it is pleasing to people is another thing entirely, but you can still do it.

By your standards then, something incidental could be also considered applied mathemathics.

 

[Bat Vader]

Art is art and science is science.That is all their is to it.

Science provides knowledge and art provides culture. To have knowledge you would need to learn culture so the two can be intertwined but only in minimal forms.

 

[El Poncho]

I am good at art and science , and why not bring them together it might work it might not.

And everyone should try art , it's what seperates us from every other species.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

It's beginning to be tedious, every week or so you people begin talking about god & argue.

This isn't about God and religion. This is about art.

OT As Labyrinth said, art and science actually go hand in hand and would work perfectly well together. It's just this debate that art isn't based on facts whilst science is that causes us to think that they're complete opposits. The truth is they are opposits but they are also dependant on eachother, and if they didn't exiist together then science wouldn't advance. Whilst science is based on facts it's dependant on the creativity of art to help discover these facts.