Science and Art
Locked
 
|
I am sorry for this delayed response to a recent thread. I often want to
participate but run out of time. Today however... Happy Holidays
"The Future of Science...Is Art?To answer our most fundamental questions, science needs to find a place for the arts." Thank you for opening this thread for conversation. In many ways I couldn't agree with this premise more. But I feel the connection can only be understood when science and art are seen as equals. Equals? What could that mean? 1. I fear framing the question that "science needs to find a place for the arts" reiterates a hierarchy between science and art that is not defensible and that does not lead to a better understanding of either or how they are related. More importantly it mis-states the nature of each, their relationship to one another and the fundamentally different approach they offer for understanding and living in the world. To be sure the complexity of the distinction/interconnection between "creatively discovering" and "art making" should not stop us from trying to understand both without creating a hierarchy or power struggle between them. As a starting point (and a gross simplification...)science's mission is to discover how the world works not create a way for the world to work. "Art and artists are more or less given the permission and the responsibility to start anew, to build or create without specific responsibility for history or precedence. Art as an activity can be as easily dedicated to the creation of first principles and underlying assumptions as to the creation of paintings and poetry." https://www.wkbank.com/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form" More problematic works of art may contain new principles that science is best able to discover. Science often progresses by more or less disqualifying and correcting an earlier understanding and approach. One work of art regardless of when it was created does not negate or devalue another work of art. All works of art more or less add to the experience and understanding of anything. What may go unnoticed here is that this ability of art to start anew and of science to follow precedence to some discovery, when valued and looked at carefully provides a check for and on the excesses of both science and art. It could be said that art keeps the human world open and science keeps it from flying apart. 2. By conflating the arts (the forms a work of art takes most often thought of as painting, music, sculpture even new forms...) and art, (the generative power, the human faculty-capibility of art making) art becomes limited to what is sometimes referred to in Judaic tradition as commentary. 3. A question remains: what can art create that science cannot and what can science discover that art cannot? And its corollary at what turn might art lead and at what turn might science take a first step. My sense is to create a new civilization as many are trying to do now we must let art take the lead. Ann Racuya-Robbins Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Ann -
Thanks for chiming in, albeit delayed. > > > *"The Future of Science...Is Art? > <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_future_of_scienceis_art.php>* > > To answer our most fundamental questions, science needs to find a > place for the arts." > > Thank you for opening this thread for conversation. In many ways I > couldn't agree with this premise more. But I feel the connection can > only be understood when science and art are seen as equals. Equals? > What could that mean? > > 1. I fear framing the question that "science needs to find a place for > the arts" reiterates a hierarchy between science and art that is not > defensible and that does not lead to a better understanding of either > or how they are related. More importantly it mis-states the nature of > each, their relationship to one another and the fundamentally > different approach they offer for understanding and living in the > world. To be sure the complexity of the distinction/interconnection > between "creatively discovering" and "art making" should not stop us > from trying to understand both without creating a hierarchy or power > struggle between them. > explanation of this is that Science(tm) and Art(tm) are, in fact, in a deadlock. (tm) implying Trademark, is my designation for a thing which has been "appropriated" for economic, religious or political exploitation. Competition for resources in the marketplace, in the political landscape, in media lead to a sense of competition where there is none. > > As a starting point (and a gross simplification...)science's mission > is to discover how the world works not create a way for the world to work. > I recently had a moment of insight in another conversation, that might be worthy of this one. /This also begs the question for me of when does Art become Science and Science become Engineering? For the purposes of argument I will reduce my definition of Science down to "Creative Exploration through Hypothesis Generation and Testing". I will reduce Art to "Creative Exploration through Artifact Generation and Experience". I will reduce Engineering to "Application of Well-Tested Hypotheses in the Generation of Artifacts with Known Properties and Uses". The language describing these three domains does seem to have some overlap. Engineering supports Science by helping to make the Testing of Hypotheses easier and more consistent. Art and Science seem to share the concept of "Creative Exploration". In our highly praxic world, most Science is well funded (when it is) in support of Engineering, which supports Technology development which supports all forms of commerce, economics (and other forms of violence). Metaphorically, everything is a lever, and to follow the metaphor, eventually everything, including the fulcrum and the lever get broken by it's application. The hazard of willfulness, I call it. / > "Art and artists are more or less given the permission //and// the > responsibility to start anew, to build or create without specific > responsibility for history or precedence. Art as an activity can be as > easily dedicated to the creation of first principles and underlying > assumptions as to the creation of paintings and poetry." > https://www.wkbank.com/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form > </horde/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form>" > > More problematic works of art may contain new principles that science > is best able to discover. > recognize symmetries and structures within artistic creations that would otherwise go "unexplained". > > Science often progresses by more or less disqualifying and correcting > an earlier understanding and approach. > Science is an iterative process of testing existing knowledge (Scientific theories) against new data and new Hypotheses. Ultimately this leads to new understandings which frame the old understanding in a more complete light. Some may say this disqualifies or corrects earlier (mis)understandings, but I think it is only in the stark illumination of hindsight that we feel that the new somehow shames the earlier as being "wrong". > > One work of art regardless of when it was created does not negate or > devalue another work of art. All works of art more or less add to the > experience and understanding of anything. > My own experience of Art is that it always adds to my experience, but not always to my understanding. > > What may go unnoticed here is that this ability of art to start anew > and of science to follow precedence to some discovery, when valued and > looked at carefully provides a check for and on the excesses of both > science and art. It could be said that art keeps the human world > open and science keeps it from flying apart. > I think that creativity is the ability (propensity) to start anew. Art itself, is often said to be exclusively referential, yet somehow in the framework of this, there is room for completely new perspectives it seems. > > 2. By conflating the **arts **(the forms a work of art takes most > often thought of as painting, music, sculpture even new forms...) and > **art**, (the generative power, the human faculty-capibility of art > making) **art** becomes limited to what is sometimes referred to in > Judaic tradition as commentary. > Art vs Artifact is how I tend to frame this. Art as process and experience rather than product. I am more interested in Art than Artifact. Artifact is more evident in the world, and we may study Art through Artifact. > > 3. A question remains: what can art create that science cannot and > what can science discover that art cannot? And its corollary at what > turn might art lead and at what turn might science take a first step. > To the extent that art is about perception (at many levels), I think Art offers Science much. Science has always offered Art something mundane through it's support of materials and processes, pigments and dies, tools and technologies. > > My sense is to create a new civilization as many are trying to do now > we must let art take the lead. > This is certainly a time of hope and rebirth, of introspection and action in new directions. I think that "a new civilization" might be a little grandiose, and I fear that history indicates that new civilizations are borne from the ashes of old ones, and while we do have quite a mess in this current one, I think we have a way yet to go down before we have the opportunity to create a new civilization. That said, I agree in principle that Science has no answers to the kinds of questions that are involved in "creating a new civilization", excepting the practical ones relating to the building of things and establishing of functioning processes. The Arts, if we include Philosophy and Poetry and Literature offer much more, including the opportunity for some significant changes in the tides that are qualitatively new. Certainly not a continuation of the last 8 years and maybe something fundamentally different than a return to the Clinton era. - Steve > > Ann Racuya-Robbins > > Founder and CEO > > World Knowledge Bank > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ann Racuya-Robbins-2
Ann, Happy Holidays back.
Much of what you say is peruasive, and not
arguable. It is interesting how much of your commentary reflects often expressed
truths, which you express powerfully. .
While not debatable, could you elaborate on your
last sentence?
As you may know, some of us are trying to address
some of these questions from a number of directions. My own effort is to seek
fundamental connections between the visual arts and physics. Art historians
speak of "form and content" (not entirely separable), content being
the "story", and form representing what the work of art has to say in its
own terms.One of my objectives is to see deep connections between the arts
and sciences from the point of view of form.
Jack
J.R. Leibowitz
author of HIDDEN HARMONY: The Connected Worlds
of Physics and Art (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008).
.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve,
I, for one, enjoyed your comments on Art and science, as I did Ann's. I would add ,though, that science offers more than in the summary statement expressed in your last paragraph. One has only to read the Einstein literature, both regarding the motivations for his discoveries and the "articles of faith" in the wisdom of the "Old One", beliefs bred from his science outlook. A fundamental scientific aesthetic guided his discoveries, and even guided his deep humanism. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [FRIAM] Science and Art > Ann - > > Thanks for chiming in, albeit delayed. >> >> >> *"The Future of Science...Is Art? >> >> <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_future_of_scienceis_art.php>* >> >> To answer our most fundamental questions, science needs to find a place >> for the arts." >> >> Thank you for opening this thread for conversation. In many ways I >> couldn't agree with this premise more. But I feel the connection can only >> be understood when science and art are seen as equals. Equals? What could >> that mean? >> >> 1. I fear framing the question that "science needs to find a place for >> the arts" reiterates a hierarchy between science and art that is not >> defensible and that does not lead to a better understanding of either or >> how they are related. More importantly it mis-states the nature of each, >> their relationship to one another and the fundamentally different >> approach they offer for understanding and living in the world. To be sure >> the complexity of the distinction/interconnection between "creatively >> discovering" and "art making" should not stop us from trying to >> understand both without creating a hierarchy or power struggle between >> them. > I am irritated, no /maddened/, by the illusion of this struggle. My > explanation of this is that Science(tm) and Art(tm) are, in fact, in a > deadlock. (tm) implying Trademark, is my designation for a thing which > has been "appropriated" for economic, religious or political exploitation. > Competition for resources in the marketplace, in the political landscape, > in media lead to a sense of competition where there is none. >> >> As a starting point (and a gross simplification...)science's mission is >> to discover how the world works not create a way for the world to work. >> > I recently had a moment of insight in another conversation, that might be > worthy of this one. > > /This also begs the question for me of when does Art become Science > and Science become Engineering? For the purposes of argument I > will reduce my definition of Science down to "Creative Exploration > through Hypothesis Generation and Testing". I will reduce Art to > "Creative Exploration through Artifact Generation and Experience". I > will reduce Engineering to "Application of Well-Tested Hypotheses > in the Generation of Artifacts with Known Properties and Uses". The > language describing these three domains does seem to have some > overlap. Engineering supports Science by helping to make the > Testing of Hypotheses easier and more consistent. Art and Science > seem to share the concept of "Creative Exploration". > In our highly praxic world, most Science is well funded (when it is) > in support of Engineering, which supports Technology development > which supports all forms of commerce, economics (and other forms of > violence). Metaphorically, everything is a lever, and to follow > the metaphor, eventually everything, including the fulcrum and the > lever get broken by it's application. The hazard of willfulness, I > call it. / > >> "Art and artists are more or less given the permission //and// the >> responsibility to start anew, to build or create without specific >> responsibility for history or precedence. Art as an activity can be as >> easily dedicated to the creation of first principles and underlying >> assumptions as to the creation of paintings and poetry." >> https://www.wkbank.com/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form >> </horde/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form>" >> >> More problematic works of art may contain new principles that science is >> best able to discover. >> > Certainly Science (usually Mathematics actually) has been known to > recognize symmetries and structures within artistic creations that would > otherwise go "unexplained". >> >> Science often progresses by more or less disqualifying and correcting an >> earlier understanding and approach. >> > Science is an iterative process of testing existing knowledge (Scientific > theories) against new data and new Hypotheses. Ultimately this leads to > new understandings which frame the old understanding in a more complete > light. Some may say this disqualifies or corrects earlier > (mis)understandings, but I think it is only in the stark illumination of > hindsight that we feel that the new somehow shames the earlier as being > "wrong". >> >> One work of art regardless of when it was created does not negate or >> devalue another work of art. All works of art more or less add to the >> experience and understanding of anything. >> > My own experience of Art is that it always adds to my experience, but not > always to my understanding. >> >> What may go unnoticed here is that this ability of art to start anew and >> of science to follow precedence to some discovery, when valued and looked >> at carefully provides a check for and on the excesses of both science and >> art. It could be said that art keeps the human world open and science >> keeps it from flying apart. >> > I think that creativity is the ability (propensity) to start anew. Art > itself, is often said to be exclusively referential, yet somehow in the > framework of this, there is room for completely new perspectives it seems. >> >> 2. By conflating the **arts **(the forms a work of art takes most often >> thought of as painting, music, sculpture even new forms...) and **art**, >> (the generative power, the human faculty-capibility of art making) >> **art** becomes limited to what is sometimes referred to in Judaic >> tradition as commentary. >> > Art vs Artifact is how I tend to frame this. Art as process and > experience rather than product. I am more interested in Art than > Artifact. Artifact is more evident in the world, and we may study Art > through Artifact. >> >> 3. A question remains: what can art create that science cannot and what >> can science discover that art cannot? And its corollary at what turn >> might art lead and at what turn might science take a first step. >> > To the extent that art is about perception (at many levels), I think Art > offers Science much. Science has always offered Art something mundane > through it's support of materials and processes, pigments and dies, tools > and technologies. >> >> My sense is to create a new civilization as many are trying to do now we >> must let art take the lead. >> > This is certainly a time of hope and rebirth, of introspection and action > in new directions. I think that "a new civilization" might be a little > grandiose, and I fear that history indicates that new civilizations are > borne from the ashes of old ones, and while we do have quite a mess in > this current one, I think we have a way yet to go down before we have the > opportunity to create a new civilization. > That said, I agree in principle that Science has no answers to the kinds > of questions that are involved in "creating a new civilization", excepting > the practical ones relating to the building of things and establishing of > functioning processes. The Arts, if we include Philosophy and Poetry and > Literature offer much more, including the opportunity for some significant > changes in the tides that are qualitatively new. Certainly not a > continuation of the last 8 years and maybe something fundamentally > different than a return to the Clinton era. > > - Steve >> >> Ann Racuya-Robbins >> >> Founder and CEO >> >> World Knowledge Bank >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Jack Leibowitz wrote:
> Steve, > > I, for one, enjoyed your comments on Art and science, as I did Ann's. > > I would add ,though, that science offers more than in the summary > statement expressed in your last paragraph. > > One has only to read the Einstein literature, both regarding the > motivations for his discoveries and the "articles of faith" in the > wisdom of the "Old One", beliefs bred from his science outlook. A > fundamental scientific aesthetic guided his discoveries, and even > guided his deep humanism. is wonderfully correlated with other important features of humanity, I'm just not sure that they are attributable to them. I feel that the rampant technological progress we have achieved since (variously: dawn of Civilization; Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, Information Revolution) has outstripped our cultural/spiritual progress. I also applaud many of Science's greatest thinkers for not being in single-minded pursuit of "objective truth", but also often interested in something less tangible, something less verifiable, that is not the domain of the Scientific method, though clearly entertwined with the Sciences. Thanks again to Ann for spurring this level of conversation, and to you Jack for adding your own well-studied contributions. I should definitely read your book "soon"! - Steve > > Jack > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:02 PM > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [FRIAM] Science and Art > > >> Ann - >> >> Thanks for chiming in, albeit delayed. >>> >>> >>> *"The Future of Science...Is Art? >>> >>> <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_future_of_scienceis_art.php>* >>> >>> >>> To answer our most fundamental questions, science needs to find a >>> place for the arts." >>> >>> Thank you for opening this thread for conversation. In many ways I >>> couldn't agree with this premise more. But I feel the connection can >>> only be understood when science and art are seen as equals. Equals? >>> What could that mean? >>> >>> 1. I fear framing the question that "science needs to find a place >>> for the arts" reiterates a hierarchy between science and art that is >>> not defensible and that does not lead to a better understanding of >>> either or how they are related. More importantly it mis-states the >>> nature of each, their relationship to one another and the >>> fundamentally different approach they offer for understanding and >>> living in the world. To be sure the complexity of the >>> distinction/interconnection between "creatively discovering" and >>> "art making" should not stop us from trying to understand both >>> without creating a hierarchy or power struggle between them. >> I am irritated, no /maddened/, by the illusion of this struggle. My >> explanation of this is that Science(tm) and Art(tm) are, in fact, in >> a deadlock. (tm) implying Trademark, is my designation for a thing >> which has been "appropriated" for economic, religious or political >> exploitation. Competition for resources in the marketplace, in the >> political landscape, in media lead to a sense of competition where >> there is none. >>> >>> As a starting point (and a gross simplification...)science's mission >>> is to discover how the world works not create a way for the world to >>> work. >>> >> I recently had a moment of insight in another conversation, that >> might be worthy of this one. >> >> /This also begs the question for me of when does Art become Science >> and Science become Engineering? For the purposes of argument I >> will reduce my definition of Science down to "Creative Exploration >> through Hypothesis Generation and Testing". I will reduce Art to >> "Creative Exploration through Artifact Generation and Experience". >> I will reduce Engineering to "Application of Well-Tested Hypotheses >> in the Generation of Artifacts with Known Properties and Uses". >> The language describing these three domains does seem to have some >> overlap. Engineering supports Science by helping to make the >> Testing of Hypotheses easier and more consistent. Art and Science >> seem to share the concept of "Creative Exploration". >> In our highly praxic world, most Science is well funded (when it is) >> in support of Engineering, which supports Technology development >> which supports all forms of commerce, economics (and other forms of >> violence). Metaphorically, everything is a lever, and to follow >> the metaphor, eventually everything, including the fulcrum and the >> lever get broken by it's application. The hazard of willfulness, I >> call it. / >> >>> "Art and artists are more or less given the permission //and// the >>> responsibility to start anew, to build or create without specific >>> responsibility for history or precedence. Art as an activity can be >>> as easily dedicated to the creation of first principles and >>> underlying assumptions as to the creation of paintings and poetry." >>> https://www.wkbank.com/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form >>> </horde/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form>" >>> >>> More problematic works of art may contain new principles that >>> science is best able to discover. >>> >> Certainly Science (usually Mathematics actually) has been known to >> recognize symmetries and structures within artistic creations that >> would otherwise go "unexplained". >>> >>> Science often progresses by more or less disqualifying and >>> correcting an earlier understanding and approach. >>> >> Science is an iterative process of testing existing knowledge >> (Scientific theories) against new data and new Hypotheses. >> Ultimately this leads to new understandings which frame the old >> understanding in a more complete light. Some may say this >> disqualifies or corrects earlier (mis)understandings, but I think it >> is only in the stark illumination of hindsight that we feel that the >> new somehow shames the earlier as being "wrong". >>> >>> One work of art regardless of when it was created does not negate >>> or devalue another work of art. All works of art more or less add to >>> the experience and understanding of anything. >>> >> My own experience of Art is that it always adds to my experience, but >> not always to my understanding. >>> >>> What may go unnoticed here is that this ability of art to start anew >>> and of science to follow precedence to some discovery, when valued >>> and looked at carefully provides a check for and on the excesses of >>> both science and art. It could be said that art keeps the human >>> world open and science keeps it from flying apart. >>> >> I think that creativity is the ability (propensity) to start anew. >> Art itself, is often said to be exclusively referential, yet somehow >> in the framework of this, there is room for completely new >> perspectives it seems. >>> >>> 2. By conflating the **arts **(the forms a work of art takes most >>> often thought of as painting, music, sculpture even new forms...) >>> and **art**, (the generative power, the human faculty-capibility of >>> art making) **art** becomes limited to what is sometimes referred to >>> in Judaic tradition as commentary. >>> >> Art vs Artifact is how I tend to frame this. Art as process and >> experience rather than product. I am more interested in Art than >> Artifact. Artifact is more evident in the world, and we may study >> Art through Artifact. >>> >>> 3. A question remains: what can art create that science cannot and >>> what can science discover that art cannot? And its corollary at what >>> turn might art lead and at what turn might science take a first step. >>> >> To the extent that art is about perception (at many levels), I think >> Art offers Science much. Science has always offered Art something >> mundane through it's support of materials and processes, pigments and >> dies, tools and technologies. >>> >>> My sense is to create a new civilization as many are trying to do >>> now we must let art take the lead. >>> >> This is certainly a time of hope and rebirth, of introspection and >> action in new directions. I think that "a new civilization" might >> be a little grandiose, and I fear that history indicates that new >> civilizations are borne from the ashes of old ones, and while we do >> have quite a mess in this current one, I think we have a way yet to >> go down before we have the opportunity to create a new civilization. >> That said, I agree in principle that Science has no answers to the >> kinds of questions that are involved in "creating a new >> civilization", excepting the practical ones relating to the building >> of things and establishing of functioning processes. The Arts, if we >> include Philosophy and Poetry and Literature offer much more, >> including the opportunity for some significant changes in the tides >> that are qualitatively new. Certainly not a continuation of the last >> 8 years and maybe something fundamentally different than a return to >> the Clinton era. >> >> - Steve >>> >>> Ann Racuya-Robbins >>> >>> Founder and CEO >>> >>> World Knowledge Bank >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Steve,
I understand your point. I do think we need to make a distinction between technological efforts and fundamental research into basic mysteries of the physical world. The desire to shed light on the latter is , in itself, a humanizing experience, in the same spirit as what is uplifting about pursuit of the arts and other humanities. In fact, it is from the same cloth. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [FRIAM] Science and Art > Jack Leibowitz wrote: >> Steve, >> >> I, for one, enjoyed your comments on Art and science, as I did Ann's. >> >> I would add ,though, that science offers more than in the summary >> statement expressed in your last paragraph. >> >> One has only to read the Einstein literature, both regarding the >> motivations for his discoveries and the "articles of faith" in the wisdom >> of the "Old One", beliefs bred from his science outlook. A fundamental >> scientific aesthetic guided his discoveries, and even guided his deep >> humanism. > I can agree that "the Age of Reason" and much of "Science" as we know it > is wonderfully correlated with other important features of humanity, I'm > just not sure that they are attributable to them. I feel that the > rampant technological progress we have achieved since (variously: dawn of > Civilization; Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, > Information Revolution) has outstripped our cultural/spiritual progress. > I also applaud many of Science's greatest thinkers for not being in > single-minded pursuit of "objective truth", but also often interested in > something less tangible, something less verifiable, that is not the domain > of the Scientific method, though clearly entertwined with the Sciences. > > Thanks again to Ann for spurring this level of conversation, and to you > Jack for adding your own well-studied contributions. I should definitely > read your book "soon"! > > - Steve >> >> Jack >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:02 PM >> Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [FRIAM] Science and Art >> >> >>> Ann - >>> >>> Thanks for chiming in, albeit delayed. >>>> >>>> >>>> *"The Future of Science...Is Art? >>>> >>>> <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/the_future_of_scienceis_art.php>* >>>> >>>> To answer our most fundamental questions, science needs to find a place >>>> for the arts." >>>> >>>> Thank you for opening this thread for conversation. In many ways I >>>> couldn't agree with this premise more. But I feel the connection can >>>> only be understood when science and art are seen as equals. Equals? >>>> What could that mean? >>>> >>>> 1. I fear framing the question that "science needs to find a place for >>>> the arts" reiterates a hierarchy between science and art that is not >>>> defensible and that does not lead to a better understanding of either >>>> or how they are related. More importantly it mis-states the nature of >>>> each, their relationship to one another and the fundamentally different >>>> approach they offer for understanding and living in the world. To be >>>> sure the complexity of the distinction/interconnection between >>>> "creatively discovering" and "art making" should not stop us from >>>> trying to understand both without creating a hierarchy or power >>>> struggle between them. >>> I am irritated, no /maddened/, by the illusion of this struggle. My >>> explanation of this is that Science(tm) and Art(tm) are, in fact, in a >>> deadlock. (tm) implying Trademark, is my designation for a thing which >>> has been "appropriated" for economic, religious or political >>> exploitation. Competition for resources in the marketplace, in the >>> political landscape, in media lead to a sense of competition where there >>> is none. >>>> >>>> As a starting point (and a gross simplification...)science's mission is >>>> to discover how the world works not create a way for the world to work. >>>> >>> I recently had a moment of insight in another conversation, that might >>> be worthy of this one. >>> >>> /This also begs the question for me of when does Art become Science >>> and Science become Engineering? For the purposes of argument I >>> will reduce my definition of Science down to "Creative Exploration >>> through Hypothesis Generation and Testing". I will reduce Art to >>> "Creative Exploration through Artifact Generation and Experience". I >>> will reduce Engineering to "Application of Well-Tested Hypotheses >>> in the Generation of Artifacts with Known Properties and Uses". The >>> language describing these three domains does seem to have some >>> overlap. Engineering supports Science by helping to make the >>> Testing of Hypotheses easier and more consistent. Art and Science >>> seem to share the concept of "Creative Exploration". >>> In our highly praxic world, most Science is well funded (when it is) >>> in support of Engineering, which supports Technology development >>> which supports all forms of commerce, economics (and other forms of >>> violence). Metaphorically, everything is a lever, and to follow >>> the metaphor, eventually everything, including the fulcrum and the >>> lever get broken by it's application. The hazard of willfulness, I >>> call it. / >>> >>>> "Art and artists are more or less given the permission //and// the >>>> responsibility to start anew, to build or create without specific >>>> responsibility for history or precedence. Art as an activity can be as >>>> easily dedicated to the creation of first principles and underlying >>>> assumptions as to the creation of paintings and poetry." >>>> https://www.wkbank.com/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form >>>> </horde/knowledge/Civilization_as_an_Art_Form>" >>>> >>>> More problematic works of art may contain new principles that science >>>> is best able to discover. >>>> >>> Certainly Science (usually Mathematics actually) has been known to >>> recognize symmetries and structures within artistic creations that would >>> otherwise go "unexplained". >>>> >>>> Science often progresses by more or less disqualifying and correcting >>>> an earlier understanding and approach. >>>> >>> Science is an iterative process of testing existing knowledge >>> (Scientific theories) against new data and new Hypotheses. Ultimately >>> this leads to new understandings which frame the old understanding in a >>> more complete light. Some may say this disqualifies or corrects >>> earlier (mis)understandings, but I think it is only in the stark >>> illumination of hindsight that we feel that the new somehow shames the >>> earlier as being "wrong". >>>> >>>> One work of art regardless of when it was created does not negate or >>>> devalue another work of art. All works of art more or less add to the >>>> experience and understanding of anything. >>>> >>> My own experience of Art is that it always adds to my experience, but >>> not always to my understanding. >>>> >>>> What may go unnoticed here is that this ability of art to start anew >>>> and of science to follow precedence to some discovery, when valued and >>>> looked at carefully provides a check for and on the excesses of both >>>> science and art. It could be said that art keeps the human world open >>>> and science keeps it from flying apart. >>>> >>> I think that creativity is the ability (propensity) to start anew. Art >>> itself, is often said to be exclusively referential, yet somehow in the >>> framework of this, there is room for completely new perspectives it >>> seems. >>>> >>>> 2. By conflating the **arts **(the forms a work of art takes most often >>>> thought of as painting, music, sculpture even new forms...) and >>>> **art**, (the generative power, the human faculty-capibility of art >>>> making) **art** becomes limited to what is sometimes referred to in >>>> Judaic tradition as commentary. >>>> >>> Art vs Artifact is how I tend to frame this. Art as process and >>> experience rather than product. I am more interested in Art than >>> Artifact. Artifact is more evident in the world, and we may study Art >>> through Artifact. >>>> >>>> 3. A question remains: what can art create that science cannot and what >>>> can science discover that art cannot? And its corollary at what turn >>>> might art lead and at what turn might science take a first step. >>>> >>> To the extent that art is about perception (at many levels), I think Art >>> offers Science much. Science has always offered Art something mundane >>> through it's support of materials and processes, pigments and dies, >>> tools and technologies. >>>> >>>> My sense is to create a new civilization as many are trying to do now >>>> we must let art take the lead. >>>> >>> This is certainly a time of hope and rebirth, of introspection and >>> action in new directions. I think that "a new civilization" might be a >>> little grandiose, and I fear that history indicates that new >>> civilizations are borne from the ashes of old ones, and while we do have >>> quite a mess in this current one, I think we have a way yet to go down >>> before we have the opportunity to create a new civilization. >>> That said, I agree in principle that Science has no answers to the kinds >>> of questions that are involved in "creating a new civilization", >>> excepting the practical ones relating to the building of things and >>> establishing of functioning processes. The Arts, if we include >>> Philosophy and Poetry and Literature offer much more, including the >>> opportunity for some significant changes in the tides that are >>> qualitatively new. Certainly not a continuation of the last 8 years and >>> maybe something fundamentally different than a return to the Clinton >>> era. >>> >>> - Steve >>>> >>>> Ann Racuya-Robbins >>>> >>>> Founder and CEO >>>> >>>> World Knowledge Bank >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Jack Leibowitz wrote:
> Steve, > > I understand your point. I do think we need to make a distinction > between technological efforts and fundamental research into basic > mysteries of the physical world. The desire to shed light on the > latter is , in itself, a humanizing experience, in the same spirit as > what is uplifting about pursuit of the arts and other humanities. In > fact, it is from the same cloth. > Agreed, though I believe that the Truth that the Arts pursue are much more subjective and ethereal than that of Science with only the barest of overlap. In my experience, the main shared experience is in the apprehension of mystery and pursuit of ideas and experiences. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |