Posted by dean on December 29, 2000 at 12:22:38:
In Reply to: Re: art and science posted by Bartholomew on December 29, 2000 at 10:05:14:
: : : : In high school I formulated this philosophy,art explores the world inside yourself and expresses it outward,while science explores the world outside and expresses it inward.
: : : Art explores both the external world and the internal world, and expresses them both outwardly and inwardly. Science generally explores the world outside only, and expresses it outwardly more than inwardly, but technically science can be used in either direction as well. I would say that the distinction between art and science is, concepts in science are verbal and concepts in art are nonverbal. Art doesn't include EVERYTHING that uses nonverbal concepts and science doesn't include EVERYTHING that uses verbal concepts, but that is the distinction between the two.
: : true,but art is primarily concerned with the searching of your INTERNAL reaction to the world outside that you are exploring and what you call expression inward is the exploration.
: Art does not have to be very concerned with one's internal reaction to the world. It can be like a photograph, completely realistic with almost no interpretation. What I call expression inward is the effect that making art has upon the person who makes it. Self-exploration is not inward expression, although it can lead to it.
: : science too can express outward for others to take IN or through its practical application which then only the external use of the internalized concept not to different to a persons internal use(feeling,or thought)of another's (external) work of art. I'm not trying to say they don't have the dual in- and outward exploration and expression but art isn't good at understanding the outside world as science isn't nearly as effective at searching the irrational heart.
: Art does not verbally understand the outside world, but it nonverbally understands it much better than science can, since science is not involved with nonverbal understanding. Science cannot reach a nonverbal, intuitive understanding of the self, but it can understand the self verbally and art cannot. The self is not irrational. People do things for reasons, and I have an informal science for understanding exactly why I do what I do.
: : they are best used as i propose art for arts sake it dosn't ever have to be seen or heard by another,and science for its own sake not necessarily to ever be used by anyone.however it's far better if they were seen and used.
: I agree that it's better for everyone to be artistic and scientific than just a few to be artistic and scientific. Art and science are good.
i think the A&S are the two most valuable persuits a person can undertake(except for all abstract virtues like love,honour,humility,kindness,ect., all are often the subjects of art ,and which i also believe are natural byproducts of the two,)and most any genuinely worthy purely intellectual persuit(highly subjective)can be catigorized as one or the other(however ill fitting)except language that can be either.more mundane endeavers will be more of a mix.again A&S for their own sake the highest ideals(almost athenian)and never to the total exclusion of practical action.a physical,emotional,intellectual renaissance.i would love for america to supplant it's clearly 3ish culture with a 5/4 or even a oneish(i know it already does but more like greece and less like puritans) philosophy minus the ego trips. i realize that's an overly idealistic simplification but it would be grand.add to that if you like but please don't detract,it's not true or real but ideal.