| Author |
Message
|
| garlane |
 Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: how important is art to science? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 3
|
Hi,
Being interested in both art and science I was wondering how important people believe art is to science today.
Art has probably been most important in the development of anatomy (e.g., the drawings of Leonardo Da Vinci) and the biological sciences (e.g., early animal illustrations). But is it as important today? Has photography and computer modelling taken its place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| j |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: Define 'art'. |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 447
|
Some consider photography and computer modeling as arts.
_________________
Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| garlane |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 3
|
Good point. I was thinking more in terms of drawing skill.
However, maybe the situation is that as society and knowledge progresses both science and art inevitably progress into more sophisticated forms. So that centuries ago sciences like anatomy and biology were aided by drawing skill, whereas today sciences are aided more by photography and computing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrNeedles |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 127
Location: south africa
|
| i think in that in that regard technology has taken the place of drawing etc however, art - the old fashioned way - s a pure form of self expression- one that cannot be replaced by technology. art also allows one to see things from a slightly different perspective - which i think is an important quality to have in a science-orientated feild. life without art would be boring. life without science would be even more boring. life without either wud be bland and un-imaginable - if hteres such a word. art needs imagination. imagination needs an excceptionally enquiring mind. science needs an exceptionally enquiring mind so i guess the two are in a small way related! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jeremyhfht |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Resident Psychologist
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2247
|
The brain uses many different areas when it comes to imagination and art forms. Many people can design insanely complex systems by drawing them out in their mind alone, yet cannot draw stickmen properly. It's the same with those that have vivid imaginations, yet cannot draw them at all (me, for example).
To put it bluntly, depending on how you define art (lets say the old-fashioned form of self-expression that is normally only used in comics today), art has almost no benefit to the sciences. However that's missing a few sciences such as psychology and neurology, going by sciences such as those yes it does benefit it. So there is no real answer, since sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
Again this depends fully on what you define as "art". Technically, everything is art since everybody preceives things differently on artistic levels, so philosophically science is art. This perception is one I'd prefer to agree with, since it's impossible to really say "only this is art" when someone else can easily preceive otherwise.
I'm possibly talking bullocks since I'm not thinking too clearly, but overall if you define art with the philosophical issue that everything is art, then yes art benefits science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| garlane |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 3
|
OK, art may at times benefit science but at other times it may not.
But is there an ongoing interaction between art and science that has not been fully recognised?
First, take the modern development of a science like anatomy via Andreas Vesalius' book "De humani corporis fabrica" in the 1500s. It depended heavily on art - via explanatory illustrations - for its succes in overturning out-of-date ancient anatomy. Even some modern anatomy books still employ traditional illustrations.
Now, in the reverse situation, take the advances in science affecting art. Dr Roger Sperry's split-brain experiments in the 1950s established the characteristic behaviours of the left and right hemisphere brains. That information was then used by artist Betty Edwards in creating her popular "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" system of learning to draw. Techniques of blocking the left hemisphere brain were employed so that the learner could draw from the right brain and produce more realistic art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| captaincaveman |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1460
|
How about the other way, science being used in art. There are many scientic processes and images which could be art. Then theres things like damien hirst work with formaldahyde
this crosses the boundarys of science and art
_________________
CAPTAINCAVEMAN
I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm
that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jeremyhfht |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Resident Psychologist
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2247
|
And my lunch.  *hurles* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The One Who Knows |
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 30
|
Art is one of the coolest things known to man, IMO.
What many folks don't understand is that art draws its meaning from science.
Someone who understands the ways of nature and is interested in detail is going to be a better guitar player than an ignorant fool.
_________________
I desire mercy, not sacrifice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Isabella-Marie |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 15
Location: Virginia
|
hehe i remember loking through the science book and looking at the diagrams and art and such and remembering them for the test...they helped me rememebr alot!
_________________
True love will outlast any hardship-(me, 06) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| snowfire |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 22
|
science needs art.
a formula could be a piece of art.
People say ' beautiful job', because the job is done to be a art work.
My English is not good, so I think your English looks like art.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| charles brough |
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 423
Location: joplin MO USA
|
You are all being so poetic!! Art is no benefit to science but science does benefit art. Take the subject of "perspective" in drawing and painting, for example.
Art expresses our trust and faith in our society. The state of the arts now would sort of indicate people hate society!
Science-enabled technology serves the arts. It enables better building and maintenance of music and other art instruments. Whether that technology is used to create idealistic art or abstract art (or sawed in half pig-art!) reflects what people feel and think about their society.
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: Re: how important is art to science? |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 412
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
| garlane wrote: |
Hi,
Being interested in both art and science I was wondering how important people believe art is to science today. |
I do find that interesting. Are you interested in specific fields in science as well as in arts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dejawolf |
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 584
Location: Norway
|
a picture says more than a thousand words.
i'm using my computer to create art, with one of these:
art has done as much for science and engineering, as science and engineering has for art.
Click on the image to view it at its original size
art helps advertise science:
in computer graphics, theres still no magic "make art" button.
computer tools has finally started to give digital sculptors the flexibility
of traditional sculptors.
CG sculpting tools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXn1ihlbMsA
_________________
only a fool puts art above science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
It depends what's meant by 'science'. Samples of 'art' are often nice but they are more likely to be found in non-discipline publications for the public such as Scientific American, Time, books, etc. (such as the above illustrations). More and more this type of art is computer generated. I'd get an 'F' on an art project but even I, with no talent, have been able to produce artwork using computer programs for some fossil literature.
In the geology discipline there are a couple of artists we'll call upon now and then. They aren't needed for dramatic works of art but rather attention to detail, etc. Equal to the artistic skill is the ability to understand and work with a researcher. ..and meet the needs...not to produce a pretty picture. These artists are also called upon to illustrate science textbooks, help prepare posters for seminars, etc. A decent income from geology contracts allows them the freedom to produce their own artwork. One artist we use does her own art show every so often and has a built-in customer base from the scientific community here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
