Why God Why: Art, Science and endless arguments

[CIA]

Isn't the definition of Art something that serves no practical purpose? Hell, I might even have added that "practical" part.

So yeah, I would have to say Science. After all, it is the difference between drawing on rocks and computer screens.

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.

Do you guys like music?

Not all music, no.

I would say I like maybe 5% of all music there is, so I guess that would be a no if we are rounding to the nearest.

Then again the music that I do like, I like ALOT... so make of it what you will.

Then art serves a practical purpose. That purpose is to have you enjoy it.

 

[Dys]

Isn't the definition of Art something that serves no practical purpose? Hell, I might even have added that "practical" part.

So yeah, I would have to say Science. After all, it is the difference between drawing on rocks and computer screens.

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.

Do you guys like music?

Not all music, no.

I would say I like maybe 5% of all music there is, so I guess that would be a no if we are rounding to the nearest.

Then again the music that I do like, I like ALOT... so make of it what you will.

Then art can serve a practical purpose. That purpose is to have you enjoy it.

Fixed. Well, kinda, at least now it's arguable. Not sure that someone liking something is a practical reason for its existance.

Not all art can serve a practical purpose, some of it (or even a lot of it) is made simply for the sake of being made. It exists for the soul reason of existing (there was some rant about it, apparently all 'art' is supposed to be defined this way which is why a car cannot be called art).

At any rate, I said earlier that the majority or arts students I know do very little work and have a lot of sex, wheras the engineering students I know (myself included) do a lot of work and are horendusly undersexed (even the girl in our course, and she is amazing). This trend of all play and no work among most arts students is what makes people on the outside generalize and assume they are all useless.

 

[CIA]

Isn't the definition of Art something that serves no practical purpose? Hell, I might even have added that "practical" part.

So yeah, I would have to say Science. After all, it is the difference between drawing on rocks and computer screens.

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.

Do you guys like music?

Not all music, no.

I would say I like maybe 5% of all music there is, so I guess that would be a no if we are rounding to the nearest.

Then again the music that I do like, I like ALOT... so make of it what you will.

Then art can serve a practical purpose. That purpose is to have you enjoy it.

Fixed. Well, kinda, at least now it's arguable. Not sure that someone liking something is a practical reason for its existance.

Not all art can serve a practical purpose, some of it (or even a lot of it) is made simply for the sake of being made. It exists for the soul reason of existing (there was some rant about it, apparently all 'art' is supposed to be defined this way which is why a car cannot be called art).

At any rate, I said earlier that the majority or arts students I know do very little work and have a lot of sex, wheras the engineering students I know (myself included) do a lot of work and are horendusly undersexed (even the girl in our course, and she is amazing). This trend of all play and no work among most arts students is what makes people on the outside generalize and assume they are all useless.

What I'm assuming is that for any given piece of artwork there is someone who likes it, therefore it serves a purpose.

 

[Dys]

text wall

Serving a purpose and serving a practical purpose are two different things, in fact, even understanding that something can have a purpose yet be in no way practical is a cornerstone of the arts.

 

[CIA]

text wall

Serving a purpose and serving a practical purpose are two different things, in fact, even understanding that something can have a purpose yet be in no way practical is a cornerstone of the arts.

You don't understand.

practical ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practical )

1. Based on practice or action rather than theory or hypothesis
2. Being likely to be effective and applicable to a real situation; able to be put to use
3. Of a person, having skills or knowledge that are practical

Is liking something not based on practice or action? Is liking something applicable in a real world situation? Yes, because you can like it in that age old real world situation of sitting down and listening to music.

I'm not trying to be condescending (I see that it may come off that way). I'm trying to get you to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[rubyblue]

Isn't the definition of Art something that serves no practical purpose? Hell, I might even have added that "practical" part.

So yeah, I would have to say Science. After all, it is the difference between drawing on rocks and computer screens.

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.

Do you guys like music?

Not all music, no.

I would say I like maybe 5% of all music there is, so I guess that would be a no if we are rounding to the nearest.

Then again the music that I do like, I like ALOT... so make of it what you will.

Then art can serve a practical purpose. That purpose is to have you enjoy it.

Fixed. Well, kinda, at least now it's arguable. Not sure that someone liking something is a practical reason for its existance.

Not all art can serve a practical purpose, some of it (or even a lot of it) is made simply for the sake of being made. It exists for the soul reason of existing (there was some rant about it, apparently all 'art' is supposed to be defined this way which is why a car cannot be called art).

At any rate, I said earlier that the majority or arts students I know do very little work and have a lot of sex, wheras the engineering students I know (myself included) do a lot of work and are horendusly undersexed (even the girl in our course, and she is amazing). This trend of all play and no work among most arts students is what makes people on the outside generalize and assume they are all useless.

You can't base your views on art on the fact that you're pissed that you aren't getting any from the art students, especially since you go around talking shit about their chosen field. Girls will never, ever ever EVER sleep with a guy who doesn't respect what they love, especially when he's so sanctimonious and yes, sexist, about it.

That said, art serves the practical purpose of feeding the human soul, which may sound fruity and nebulous to you, but riddle me this, Batman: can you think of any society in history, ever, that has succeeded without the arts being an important part of it? The most successful times in history are the times when both arts and sciences have flourished together. The Renaissance ring a bell? Creativity and logic aren't things that oppose each other, they're things that feed of off each other and help each other along. That's why learning to read and play music can help you learn math.

The fact is that art isn't superior to science and science isn't superior to art, and one is not more "useful" than the other.

 

[Dys]

Isn't the definition of Art something that serves no practical purpose? Hell, I might even have added that "practical" part.

So yeah, I would have to say Science. After all, it is the difference between drawing on rocks and computer screens.

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.

Do you guys like music?

Not all music, no.

I would say I like maybe 5% of all music there is, so I guess that would be a no if we are rounding to the nearest.

Then again the music that I do like, I like ALOT... so make of it what you will.

Then art can serve a practical purpose. That purpose is to have you enjoy it.

Fixed. Well, kinda, at least now it's arguable. Not sure that someone liking something is a practical reason for its existance.

Not all art can serve a practical purpose, some of it (or even a lot of it) is made simply for the sake of being made. It exists for the soul reason of existing (there was some rant about it, apparently all 'art' is supposed to be defined this way which is why a car cannot be called art).

At any rate, I said earlier that the majority or arts students I know do very little work and have a lot of sex, wheras the engineering students I know (myself included) do a lot of work and are horendusly undersexed (even the girl in our course, and she is amazing). This trend of all play and no work among most arts students is what makes people on the outside generalize and assume they are all useless.

You can't base your views on art on the fact that you're pissed that you aren't getting any from the art students, especially since you go around talking shit about their chosen field. Girls will never, ever ever EVER sleep with a guy who doesn't respect what they love, especially when he's so sanctimonious and yes, sexist, about it.

That said, art serves the practical purpose of feeding the human soul, which may sound fruity and nebulous to you, but riddle me this, Batman: can you think of any society in history, ever, that has succeeded without the arts being an important part of it? The most successful times in history are the times when both arts and sciences have flourished together. The Renaissance ring a bell? Creativity and logic aren't things that oppose each other, they're things that feed of off each other and help each other along. That's why learning to read and play music can help you learn maths(sorry, the american murder of the english language annoys me, and I couldn't help myself).

The fact is that art isn't superior to science and science isn't superior to art, and one is not more "useful" than the other.

You've managed to miss my point entirely. Whether or not I'm having a lot of sex, or partying a lot is completely irrelevant. I hang around art students a lot more than most of my engineering friends and, on average do a lot less work (that is to say I'm a terrible example of an engineering student). I'm not commenting about me as an individual.

I honestly can't see what's sexist about saying arts students, in general, seem more interested in having sex and partying than they do studying (several months ago I went to a monash-arts "sex it up" party...I don't know of any other engineering students there). It isn't a gender specific trend, and even if it was it wouldn't be sexist. Men and women think differently, acknowledging this isn't sexist, treating them differently (especially in a professional environment) is. Even though it's irrelevant to my point, I think you'll find girls (and boys) will often have sex with people who look down on them. In fact, people with lower self esteem, in my experience, are a lot more likely to engage in casual sex, especially with people who think they are superior.

I never said arts wasn't useful, or that it should be removed. I do think it should be focused on less (where I'm from, there are like 4 or 5 arts students for every engineering/science student), but that's simply because the balance is far from even, and I didn't say that above anyway. It doesn't aim to teach real world, practical skills. You cannot physicially build or design anything from arts knowledge, it is more about understanding society, that is different from it not teaching relevant skills. Being able to paint a pretty picture or write a convincing essay may not create progresss, but it will help others understand envision the proposed direction of society, and as such both (or whatever substitute is used) is irreplacably important.

As a rule, Science subject is more useful than arts, where I'm from. This is because the percentage of students who take science seriously is far greater, and because we currently have a lot less need for people with arts degrees. That isn't to say that arts isn't important, or that society could function without them, just that those skills are less in demand (or rather we have an abundance of people with those skills).

I never said one was more useful than the other, I simply said that, many engineering/science students don't take arts students seriously because such a huge portion of them don't do work, spend all their time trying to further their sexual endevors or partying and yet most of them still manage to get their degree. They also have somewhere between 8 and 16 contact hours at uni, where engineering students have between 20 and 30. Their are also a lot of pointless subjects that have been grouped into arts degrees, seemingly to compensate for all these students who don't want to do any work (things like wine tasting, I shit you not it's an arts subject at melbourne uni, go look it up). I'm sure that it could be useful in some scenarios, but society has no real need for wine testers right now, and how in fucks name is that art?

Arts is only useful if the person who practices it takes it seriously, sure everythings like that, but there seems to be a real need to remind most arts students of this and not so much need for people undertaking other studies.

 

[Screens]

Art is expression. Science is explanation. The two are virtually the same, yet completely opposite. To go into further discussion of the matter would doubtlessly lead to arguments and theories that act as the intellectual equivalent of infinity, at once separate and whole.

However one perceives either determines pretentiousness.

What an ethereal explanation that so completely accurately describes both art and science.
In other words, art is for the soul, and science is for the mind. Both strive for a complete description of one's surroundings in two completely opposite ways. Accurate enough?

But simply, science just has so many more practical applications than art. Good art is only good to certain people (I hate the works of van Gogh), but everyone (mostly) can attest to the glory that is technology. If you're reading this, then you are using the creation of a scientist.

 

[CashewStep]

Good art is only good to certain people (I hate the works of van Gogh), but everyone (mostly) can attest to the glory that is technology. If you're reading this, then you are using the creation of a scientist.

Van Gogh isn't the best representation of art's usefulness. Just as the "Singing Bass" and "Twitter" aren't the best representations of technology.

Practical application such as layout design and readable font choices also contribute to the accessibility of "you" reading this. Though I admit that Van Gogh works are of the more glorified in the art world, they are by no means the most useful or accessible to a wide audience. They aren't the computers of the art world.

That being said, while art has it's applications, technology has always been the indicator of a society's growth. Our lifestyles are possible because of the advancement of science. And science is much more rigorous (to me, anyway).

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Art is expression. Science is explanation. The two are virtually the same, yet completely opposite. To go into further discussion of the matter would doubtlessly lead to arguments and theories that act as the intellectual equivalent of infinity, at once separate and whole.

However one perceives either determines pretentiousness.

What an ethereal explanation that so completely accurately describes both art and science.
In other words, art is for the soul, and science is for the mind. Both strive for a complete description of one's surroundings in two completely opposite ways. Accurate enough?

But simply, science just has so many more practical applications than art. Good art is only good to certain people (I hate the works of van Gogh), but everyone (mostly) can attest to the glory that is technology. If you're reading this, then you are using the creation of a scientist.

Well said.