From a very interesting article in the current issue of Seed Magazine called The Future of Science is...Art? In the piece, the author proposes the development of a new scientific method in which science and the arts work intimately together; where every science department has a resident artist to inspire the scientists with their intuitive truths and to make tangible the scientists findings, and where subjective modes of Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

4,964 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 14 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you think the future of science is art?
From a very interesting article in the current issue of Seed Magazine called The Future of Science is...Art? In the piece, the author proposes the development of a new scientific method in which science and the arts work intimately together; where every science department has a resident artist to inspire the scientists with their intuitive truths and to make tangible the scientists findings, and where subjective modes of ``truth finding`` are used to supplement traditionally accepted scientific ones.

http://morbidanatomy.blogspot.com/2...


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Bottom Last Post

14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Tuesday 2/5/08 - 6:48:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
That's really interesting. I've always thought that art has empirical truths in it that are inextricable from the truths that science seeks to figure out.

There was some writer who commented that science without myth/allegory to give it a story has no purpose. I think art serves the same function, it's a metaphorical language that has so much in it and can inform so much. I don't think that the rationality of science has to be, or should be, separated from it.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Tuesday 1/6/09 - 9:19:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
It seems to approach things from the view that if things 'feel' true, that they are (or are likely to be), but seems somewhat lacking in perspective. Things criticised, like Freudianism, used similar lines of reasoning as justification. If intuition were enough, we wouldn't need to test things at all.

Having artists create visualisations of scientific concepts may help the public and/or students grasp them better, but it doesn't benefit to process of scientific investigation itself, and most likely those doing the research don't require them to understand it.

Otherwise, scientists need to be creative, they don't need to be artists, the two aren't synonymous by any means.
13 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Thursday 2/12/09 - 3:46:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
I SEED.

And although I do agree on the ever increasing trend for artists to lean more and more towards science (especially as the culture shift of accepting art as research and science as culture is beginning to be more apparent for people) there is also the reaction in the art world against anything and everything, including itself.

So while they are becoming closer than have been in hundreds of years (when science and art were generally accepted as intrinsically tied) they will always be two separate disciplines with a sect of each belonging as much in one world as the other.



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 What does your money do?

2 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

3 If you had a genetic disease, would you reproduce?

4 Would you make love with your clone?

5 Are you currently menstruating?

6 Is it 2018?

7 Was your high school named after a person?

8 Is there a good story behind your avy?

9 Does your favourite movie pass the Bechdel test?

10 Have you gotten your COVID vaccine?

More Questions
 
Edit