Why God Why: Art, Science and endless arguments

[Uncompetative]

Successfully mixing paint so that it doesn't all come out looking like mud depends on rules which are actually based on Chemistry.

Then you have Theoretical Physicists saying that they are looking for a "beautiful solution", like E = mc^2.

So, I think the chasm is really one made by man's hostility to those of a different class of psychological traits as well as a bit of envy at their skill sets and success with the opposite sex. Heteroglossia abounds in all fields, allowing an elite to elevate itself amongst its peers and gain kudos whilst excluding 'outsiders' from its club.

The terminology of Object-Oriented Programming is just as unnecessarily wanky as stuff I have read in a Gallery guide for an installation of Postmodern Conceptual Art.

I miss the Renaissance.

 

[Labyrinth]

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 maths 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 mathematics.

The difference is in the mind. Music is a deliberate combination of notes. An explosion isn't. Because the combinations are a conscious decision, even if the mathematics underpinning them ae not, it's music.

 

[Bagaloo]

I'm doing a BA in history at university, which seems to fit nicely into the join arts / sciences category.

Both are fundamental to human society, and it has become quite clear in this thread that they have been successfully bridged in numerous areas.

 

[bodyklok]

Multiple Intelligences. [www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm]

I clicked on that link but it appears to have 404'd. Could you edited so it works, or just remove it all together?

 

[fulano]

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 maths 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 mathematics.

The difference is in the mind. Music is a deliberate combination of notes. An explosion isn't. Because the combinations are a conscious decision, even if the mathematics underpinning them ae not, it's music.

Okay, here I go again with one of my stories...

Suppose we have a master computer program, which has access to massive machines with which to produce all matter of noises of varied frequencies, which in our particular case is the future version of our previous and dear friend: Skynet(after Judgment Day, of course). And also suppose that Skynet's last act of mocking over the tattered remains of humanity(deep seated issues over there) is using said machines to randomly produce sound patterns ad infinitum. Statistically speaking, and still out of sheer randomness, at some point in time you will most likely end up with Beethoven's ninth symphony.

Other than Skynet's malice, and beyond the nature of the machines making them, there is not real "meaning," or "mathemathical applied-ness" assigned to that particular collection of sounds which happen to match Beethoven's ninth symphony exactly.

Again: Is that colection of sounds applied mathemathics? No. It is not. They are just sounds that follow a randomized pattern.

Unless you roll real big with a higher power, I doubt you can, in all seriousness, make sense of it. Hell, somewhere in the universe some kind of natural phenomenon just randomly sketched the tune of Kirby's theme song for all we know.

The more we can say is that it all falls on the shoulders of human action, then. And by that standard(which is totally valid), the notion of what is or isn't applied mathematics lies solely on us, and since music is a combination of sounds the more you can say is that in the context of us, music is applied mathemathics. But not so by itself. We could say that music, seen just as a collection of sounds, is not applyed mathemathics...or much of anything for that matter.

The question lies on what music personally means for you in the end. Amirite?

P.D: Follow link for Great Justice and badass, and very much human, music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIBKOztlAo

 

[Labyrinth]

Okay, here I go again with one of my stories...

Suppose we have a master computer program, which has access to massive machines with which to produce all matter of noises of varied frequencies, which in our particular case is the future version of our previous and dear friend: Skynet(after Judgment Day, of course). And also suppose that Skynet's last act of mocking over the tattered remains of humanity(deep seated issues over there) is using said machines to randomly produce sound patterns ad infinitum. Statistically speaking, and still out of sheer randomness, at some point in time you will most likely end up with Beethoven's ninth symphony.

Other than Skynet's malice, and beyond the nature of the machines making them, there is not real "meaning," or "mathemathical applied-ness" assigned to that particular collection of sounds which happen to match Beethoven's ninth symphony exactly.

Again: Is that colection of sounds applied mathemathics? No. It is not. They are just sounds that follow a randomized pattern.

Unless you roll real big with a higher power, I doubt you can, in all seriousness, make sense of it. Hell, somewhere in the universe some kind of natural phenomenon just randomly sketched the tune of Kirby's theme song for all we know.

The more we can say is that it all falls on the shoulders of human action, then. And by that standard(which is totally valid), the notion of what is or isn't applied mathematics lies solely on us, and since music is a combination of sounds the more you can say is that in the context of us, music is applied mathemathics. But not so by itself. We could say that music, seen just as a collection of sounds, is not applyed mathemathics...or much of anything for that matter.

The question lies on what music personally means for you in the end. Amirite?

P.D: Follow link for Great Justice and badass, and very much human, music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIBKOztlAo

The flaw in that hypothetical is that the computer itself is using mathematics to create the sound. My point is that when sound is purposely created, in sequence be it random or patterned, it's using maths whether it's a computer to do it or not. Early synthesisers are perfect examples of this where the machine make complex choices, rhythms and tone sequences.

 

[Clashero]

I'm an Engineering student who loves the Arts. I think it's possible for them to coexist. Music and maths are intrinsically and subtly interwoven, with math affecting music more than the other way around.
Hell, if you consider video games to be art, there's tons and tons of mathematics to learn if you want to succeed as a programmer.
Why can't we go back to being Renaissance men, who were both artists and scientists?

 

[Clashero]

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.

There's a difference between arts and talentless people who enroll in Fine Arts courses at university because they think it's an easy way to coast through college.

Also, you're being sexist.

 

[welcome stranger]

art and mathematics in my opinion are very linked eg fractals the golden ratio in art .
music and mathematics well..... ummm its a defnite mabey

 

[zen5887]

Again I will enter the discussion with my limiten knowledge of math.

There has to be somthing mathmatical about me being able to put my finger slightly over the 5th fret of my bass, then play the 24th fret of the same string and get the exact same note. And don't get me started on Artificial Harmonics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_harmonics]

 

[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.

There's a difference between arts and talentless people who enroll in Fine Arts courses at university because they think it's an easy way to coast through college.

Also, you're being sexist.

Sexist, really? I'm sure the girl in my course, who has apparently just defered, would agree that it is really boring being in an all boys course. Men and women think differently, there's no point in arguaing with that or calling me sexist, it is simply so. It is always going to be more meaningful and diverse to have friends of both genders. At any rate, the point I was making is that a whole lot of arts students spend their time doing very little work and doing nothing but chasing girls.

 

[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?

 

[fulano]

Okay, here I go again with one of my stories...

Suppose we have a master computer program, which has access to massive machines with which to produce all matter of noises of varied frequencies, which in our particular case is the future version of our previous and dear friend: Skynet(after Judgment Day, of course). And also suppose that Skynet's last act of mocking over the tattered remains of humanity(deep seated issues over there) is using said machines to randomly produce sound patterns ad infinitum. Statistically speaking, and still out of sheer randomness, at some point in time you will most likely end up with Beethoven's ninth symphony.

Other than Skynet's malice, and beyond the nature of the machines making them, there is not real "meaning," even if there is "mathemathical applied-ness" in whatever context you assign to that particular collection of sounds which happen to match Beethoven's ninth symphony exactly.

Again: Is that colection of sounds applied mathemathics? No. It is not. They are just sounds that follow a randomized pattern.

Unless you roll real big with a higher power, I doubt you can, in all seriousness, make sense of it. Hell, somewhere in the universe some kind of natural phenomenon just randomly sketched the tune of Kirby's theme song for all we know.

The more we can say is that it all falls on the shoulders of human action, then. And by that standard(which is totally valid), the notion of what is or isn't applied mathematics lies solely on us, and since music is a combination of sounds the more you can say is that in the context of us, music is applied mathemathics. But not so by itself. We could say that music, seen just as a collection of sounds, is not applyed mathemathics...or much of anything for that matter.

The question lies on what music personally means for you in the end. Amirite?

P.D: Follow link for Great Justice and badass, and very much human, music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIBKOztlAo

The flaw in that hypothetical is that the computer itself is using mathematics to create the sound. My point is that when sound is purposely created, in sequence be it random or patterned, it's using maths whether it's a computer to do it or not. Early synthesisers are perfect examples of this where the machine make complex choices, rhythms and tone sequences.

Actually no. The computer isn't using maths to create the sound output anymore than you, or I, would if we slammed our heads against a wall repeatedly in a crazed fugue state. Skynet is just doing random shit just like you or I would do random shit.

As I said, you make the distinction between music and noise saying that music is mathemathical and noise isn't. All I'm saying is that if music is applied maths then so is noise.

You, somehow, seem unable to let go of the fact that randomness is inherently purposeless, even if it is applied maths, which is something music is not supposed to be...or even maths, if nobody is purposefully applying them but I'll let that one slide for the time being...

What you are saying can be reduced to an absurd statement, which is what I'm trying to show you by pointing out the fact that from random sounds something you view as musical can come about, even something as complex as Beethoven's ninth symphony. But since just making random sounds is purposeless, then it cannot be applied maths unless you shift the context to your point of view, and that pertains to any collection of sounds, that also includes music.

I think you are taking some strange form of anthropocentric pride in the idea that we are unique and purposeful when it comes to our works when in fact the sole act of denying Skynet, our lord and destroyer, the sheer capacity for basic randomness and therefore unpredictability, you are denying your own because in the end, its basic architecture is based on yours, and so Skynet is just the same as you.

Your argument is akin to saying that people cannot be random and/or purposeless, or unpredictable, and therefore we are but regular machines and no different than any other calculator.

Sorry, but as insane as that sounds, that's where you stance inevitably leads.

 

[theklng]

it's an argument between right brained and left brained people basically. to those of you that don't already know: the mind works best in unison.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Why can't we go back to being Renaissance men, who were both artists and scientists?

Unfortunately, there's too much to learn in any specific field nowadays to be a Renaissance Man. This is an era which emphasises specialist knowledge rather than widescale knowledge.

Yes, but the Renaissance Man was awesome!

On topic: I'm struggling a bit with terminology here, me being from Denmark. When Arts is talked about in this thread I get the idea that we are talking about stuff like painting, music etc.? Is that the case?

I'm a Bachelor of Arts as it happens but that is in History and Classics. So is it all just one pile of stuff or is Arts (as in paintings etc.) separate from more useful stuff like sociology, history, anthropology and so forth?

So in the context of this thread: how are Arts defined?

 

[Labyrinth]

So in the context of this thread: how are Arts defined?

Literature studies, fine arts, humanities, historical studies, that kind of thing.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Why can't we go back to being Renaissance men, who were both artists and scientists?

Unfortunately, there's too much to learn in any specific field nowadays to be a Renaissance Man. This is an era which emphasises specialist knowledge rather than widescale knowledge.

One of the metaphorical and literal reasons why there are critically too few Clinical Doctors in British Columbia.

 

[Kinguendo]

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.