Why God Why: Art, Science and endless arguments
- Thread starter Labyrinth
- Start date
And I'm saying that this biological imperative is to make babies with the best set of survival traits. So, the peahens are attracted to what they see as the most excessive, the best peacock through judging its tail, with the idea being that they'll make the healthiest babies. It's not a conscious thing, just as most mating rituals are a matter of the male showing off as much as he can to attract a female.unabomberman said:
Nevar. It's a fight to the death.zen5887 said:
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.
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.
However one perceives either determines pretentiousness.
A lot of music is maths actually, and those who are very good at maths are often very good at music. There's the experimentation, learning the basics of the craft and from there on up it's a matter of working out for yourself what works and what doesn't.unabomberman said:
Like I said before, my knowledge of the science of music pretty limited but there are things like frequency, delay (and I don't mean digital delay, working it out my putting the microphones a certan distance away from the source) and some intence time signiture stuff is pretty mathmatical (how can you put a 4/4 melody over a 6/8 beat). Having said all that, I am honestly not sure if that is really 'scientific' rather than 'a very elaborate and sophisticated method'unabomberman said:
I am positive that there is some physics in working out the speed of sound which can be used in a musical sence (see delay) but thats all I am sure of.
Good question Mr. unabomberman, I think I will ask one of my lectures about it, he knows everything.
I went to Art School to study Painting, but before that I attended a Grammar school that wouldn't let me slack off in the Six-Form and study Classical Civilization & Computer Studies 'O' Levels alongside 'A' level Art and General Studies. I basically wanted to be old enough to go onto a Foundation course in Art & Design which was impossible to get on at 16. However, this 'hothouse' was very keen on getting its pupils to University (even if they didn't want to go...) and the Headmistress forced me to take my two top subjects at 'A' level as I had gotten A's in both Maths and Physics.Labyrinth said:
I should have left.
However, I am still interested in Cosmology and Quantum Electro-Dynamics, String Theory, M-theory, etc. Mainly because I had plans on writing a Hard Science fiction novel about a Japanese genius who figures out the Theory of Everything and the technology and intrigue that ensues from his discoveries. You know, the whole dangerous idea thing that we had from E = mc^2 and the Manhattan Project.
Since then I have been a programmer, researching language and interface design. Trying to come up with a tool that is frictionless...
I'm interested in Philosophy and Psychology (the notion of 'flow' is central to my work).
I am convinced that Videogames will become a new art form, but that they will not be stories that have games, but games that have a theme which is consistently conveyed through a form of improvised contextual drama (i.e. no human authored script).
So, I am equally interested in Art and Science and can accommodate both mindsets. However, it does lead to endless arguments...
...with myself.
I'll be honest, I had no idea there was even an argument between the two. I for one find it hard to believe there are people who, if there were a fire in a city, would try to rescue the art museum instead of the university. (Yes, I know thats a poor example, but you get the idead)
In my opinion though, that more can be archived by both art and science working together. The creative input of art, and the expressive ability of artists. When combined with the nature of science it's self, have the potential to create amazing things.
That said though, science often calls upon artists to express or illustrate complex things, like the inner workings or atoms, or blacks holes and things like that.
EDIT:
In my opinion though, that more can be archived by both art and science working together. The creative input of art, and the expressive ability of artists. When combined with the nature of science it's self, have the potential to create amazing things.
That said though, science often calls upon artists to express or illustrate complex things, like the inner workings or atoms, or blacks holes and things like that.
EDIT:
You sir, have the right idea.Worgen said:
Since I'm a fan of both (leaning towards science, not really serious with art), my favorite art forms are music and video games. Music is very rhythmical, and video games have endless mathematics and computer science (duh!) in them.
A [http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/uses-math/music/] lot [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1745-9737&subcategory=MM100000] of [http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~bensondj/html/music.pdf] evidence [http://sonantometry.blogspot.com/] suggests [http://www.amarilli.co.uk/piano/theory/mus-sci.asp] that [http://www.musimathics.com/] you [http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=1313&bodyId=1470] are [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED388615] in fact wrong in that assumption. Take a look into the background research and then come back to me.unabomberman said:
Art was brought into it because it's a similar thing that we humans do, namely, the point I've been trying to get across to you for the last several posts.
Wait I think that I know why art and science are equally important, and can express it without getting all floaty. Science is necessary for understanding the world that exists around us, thus making it easier to actually survive. Art is important as it is necessary to understand the people which inhabit the world, which is very important to humans as we are HIGHLY social beings even compaired to other social species. That and to me science doesn't seem very well suited to explaining human nature or social dogma without getting confusing.unabomberman said:
We need art. Our species is socail and needs extensions of expression. All science and no art make for a painfull amoutn of bianry and no jokes.RAKtheUndead said:
Dont get me wrong. I loves me some science. Im suddying enginnering, so Im currently getting rape by science (and liking it).
People need to under stand that there is an ebb of flow ebtweent the two. Science require crativity and random guess to get anywere. While succesfull art requires alot of know how and satistics to work out.
I dont see how they should even intertwine or be bridged.
There are inherent similarities in the methods humans use and apply to both but that does not make them linked.
To me, Science is expressed as a question and seeks to answer that question(why is the sky blue, what are we made of, are there any other planets like ours out there?, etc..)
Art on the other hand is about expression itself. As humans we use art to express ourselves in ways that other forms of communication cannot.
While art may ask questions also it is always more of an internal questioning as opposed to science which I percieve as more of an external questioning.
Thats how I see it, my opinion and such and so forth....
There are inherent similarities in the methods humans use and apply to both but that does not make them linked.
To me, Science is expressed as a question and seeks to answer that question(why is the sky blue, what are we made of, are there any other planets like ours out there?, etc..)
Art on the other hand is about expression itself. As humans we use art to express ourselves in ways that other forms of communication cannot.
While art may ask questions also it is always more of an internal questioning as opposed to science which I percieve as more of an external questioning.
Thats how I see it, my opinion and such and so forth....
Eh...nope. The article, I think--and here we will fundamentally disagree--agreees with me. It is representing music using maths. Which I never said you couldn't do.Labyrinth said:
Honestly, I could barely understand the symbols the guy used, and even less the musical lingo he drops here and there. But what I could piece together is the following:
Mr. Khramov uses frequences of tonics, which he devides in n-number of parts(and apparently that's an octave), and then he maps them to a function he defined earlier to get an output he refers to as a tune. The function he used is a tonal function. And that's just the abridged version as I understood it.
What he does do, however, beyond getting tonal functions, is give a formula that generates said tonal functions, and that is totally badass.
And yet that doesn't inherently say or prove in any way that music is maths. The paper is only saying that you can represent music using maths.
Just imagine a bunch of kids playing in a regular orchestra; they have their own representations of tonals, sounds, notes, lengths of notes, etc., or maybe they are a rock ensemble and are using tabs for tunes and stuff. We would have to ask ourselves: Are they doing math? The answer is, naturally, no. They are not doing math. They are doing music.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Checking the other links, also, doesn't really make me think what you think. They do not say that music IS math, either. Only that you can establish relationships between them.