Art is a satire of life. The artist's particular viewpoint/perspective is
interjected into the creation of the piece, and may hope to cause the viewer
to ask a question, or ponder an answer. Science similarly is the constant
invention to answer questions. I once heard Arther C. Clarke (on television)
say that scientists and poets (are artists as well), are alike in that they
ask the relevant questions, who are we, why are we here, how did we get
here, and what is this all about.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
> "scerir@libero.it"<scerir@libero.it> writes:
> > Art, science: what is the (main) difference?
> > My opinion is simple.
> > Sciences have some "attractor-like" pattern.
> > Researchers "discover" exactly the same thing (law, theorem, ...).
> > Even in very different times, countries, "languages" '(i.e. quantum
> > mechanics).
> > That's definitely not true, in art.
> > Michelangelo is far from Raffaello, etc..
> > In art there's not a common language, world, meaning, aim,
> > object, etc.
> 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.
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:13 MDT