From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 12:07:39 MDT
On Monday, April 10, 2000 10:59 AM Anders Sandberg asa@nada.kth.se wrote:
> I think you have a point here, although I don't think this is the most
> important difference between art and science. Science is constrained
> by reality (or rather, it *seeks* constraints), while art has few
> constraints ( mainly some cultural and a few technical constraints)
> and actively tries to avoid them. Engineering is similar to art in
> this respect, although it is constrained by a deliberate purpose it
> has to achieve.
I generally agree here, though I would point out that art is even more
limited than that. After all, if an art object can't objectify -- even in a
cultural context -- its message, then it might as well be random. This does
not mean that the message objectified in it has to be easy to get at -- any
more than a monograph on quantum field theory has to be easy to understand.
I would also ask people here what they think is the purpose of art? And I
don't mean the purpose as it relates to the individual artist, but its
purpose for the human mind. Why do humans seem to be the only animals that
produce art? (Yeah, I've heard of apes painting, but this is inside the
context of working with humans. They don't do that in the wild. Also,
whalesong, birdsong, and the like seem more aimed at communication than
contemplation, though the jury might still be out on the former for
whalesong. Humans appear to be the only unequivocal makers of art.)
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:57 MST