30 Jun 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWe would still be human if we lived in a cave and did nothing but gather fruit and berries to eat.
Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
Our lives would not be so enriched if we had no arts or sciences.
A large part of the study of science is in fact art.
Where do you place social interactions as those are probably what we value most in our lives.
30 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with you, I can marvel at a song, poem, painting, and so on,
We would still be human if we lived in a cave and did nothing but gather fruit and berries to eat.
Our lives would not be so enriched if we had no arts or sciences.
A large part of the study of science is in fact art.
Where do you place social interactions as those are probably what we value most in our lives.
and at someone who through their reason make some profound
discovery as well.
Kelly
30 Jun 08
Originally posted by sonhousePersonally I believe both enrich our lives, but if i had to choose one I would lose science.
Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
Whilst being a scientist by trade, I would still be able to be appreciate the world without knowing so much about it, plus I hate a lot of the crap science has given us....... a less commercial / consumerism world would suit me fine.
There are of course other things the world could lose before either of these choices.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't see them as being mutually exclusive. The same creative force, the inner muse if you will, that spur the artistic spur the scientific as well.
Which one could we do without and still call ourselves human?
The arts means literature, dance, sculpture, music, poetry, painting, and so forth.
02 Jul 08
Here's my 2 cents as a musician and a keen phycisist: art is science and science is art. One cannot do one without doing the other. If you come up with a beautiful formula or theory, who can say it isn't art? Newton's laws of motion were minimalistic art, beautiful in simplicity, quantum mechanics are more abstract but still they make me feel the same way art does. Music (for example) is nothing more than different frequencies combined to make beautiful sounds. It's just like physics: you have these basic theories (e.g. scales, modes, chords) you use when composing. But just like in science a good composer creates new rules (e.g tritonus, 2-5-1 turnaround instead of 5-4-1) to make new music. The same applies to every art form from literature to performance art (although I've never understood performance art but to each his own I guess)
Whoa that was a lot of nonesense. Ah well hope you get my point anyway.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, even hunter-gatherer societies have (had) plenty of time for art. Of course you might consider opposable thumbs 'technology'. A good case can be made that modern industrialism has limited creative time and space significantly. Naturally that hinges on what you call 'creative'. Is the latest Indiana Jones art or just a good product? Is there a difference anymore?
Without science to provide technology there is no time for art.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScyhteWhat area of physics are you into? Student? My son-in-law Gandhi, has a phd in statistical physics, used to be called biophysics. I am just a photonics technician, still pretty high tech stuff, 21st century physics for sure. What music are you into? Are you aware of the round three of the music contest here at RHP? If you want to hear some music you would not think comes from chessplayers, go to the culture site and you can see the RHP music Tournie III thread and find the download and listen, there are 24 tracks there, three of them mine (I compose acoustic instrumental folk-like melodies and such) There is a guy, hydra something or other, who is a professional jazz guitarist who plays a 10 string guitar, unusual instrument, and he is a virtuoso at it. Gregflats is also a pro musician in Philly, there are some real musicians there. Check them out!
[b]Here's my 2 cents as a musician and a keen phycisist: art is science and science is art. One cannot do one without doing the other. If you come up with a beautiful formula or theory, who can say it isn't art? Newton's laws of motion were minimalistic art, beautiful in simplicity, quantum mechanics are more abstract but still they make me feel the same way art ...[text shortened]... his own I guess)
Whoa that was a lot of nonesense. Ah well hope you get my point anyway.[/b
02 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHunter gatherer societies had time for art because they had clothes, worked stone tools and weapons, paints, brushes, medicine, maybe a calendar...
No, even hunter-gatherer societies have (had) plenty of time for art. Of course you might consider opposable thumbs 'technology'. A good case can be made that modern industrialism has limited creative time and space significantly. Naturally that hinges on what you call 'creative'. Is the latest Indiana Jones art or just a good product? Is there a difference anymore?
What I doubt they had were full time artists. I know several full time artists myself.
Bonobos, when supplied food and art supplies, become artists. Did you know that?
http://www.greatapetrust.org/media/releases/2007/nr_55a07.php
EDIT - I suppose using your fingernail to draw a nose in the dirt can be considered art, but you get MORE art with science. LOTS more.