Science vs Art

[Anonymous No.3243653]

Science. Art.

What does /sci/ have to say about them, comparatively?

Would Anon say one holds higher value? Perhaps, that they are equivalent; one simply a search for objective fact, while the other an exploration for subjective meaning? Is it simply foolish to try and compare the values of them?

[Anonymous No.3243670]

art > science. Its obvious.
science is a art.

[Anonymous No.3243679]

Art exists to fill the void left in people now that there isn't a fight for survival. The better it fills the void, the more 'artistic' something is. art only makes you feel good. The reason we need art to feel good is because science made things easy for people who don't do science and they got bored. True people of science such as myself have no use for art, although I do use music to help balance my mood when doing science. I use it scientifically though

[Anonymous No.3243689]

I've always been fascinated by the analogy stated: "it's comparing apples and oranges."
Some people seem to miss the point of the phrase. It's not that you can't compare apples and oranges, but that you are limited in the ways in which you can do so. What makes a good apple is different from what makes a good orange, and vice versa, so you can't compare them by the same metrics.
A crisp, firm orange would be an oddity, and I've yet to experience a tasty green one.
But I can say that I enjoy apples more often (though only good apples, mealy ones turn my stomach), but that there are times when oranges are what will most enrich my life.

[Anonymous No.3243690]

>>3243653
Art>Science
Science doesnt hold any actual value

[Anonymous No.3243699]

>>3243679

you are an idiot.

Art is responsible for an enormous amount of human achievement, inspiration and well being. Through art, one can realize the true beauty which lies within life and even within science. Even within the scientific field, there's an enormous amount of beauty which can be likened to abstract/modern/older art. Ever heard of the Fibonacci sequence? The golden ratio? In fact, have you ever taken a solid Geometry course; say, sympletic Geometry or Differential Geometry? What about Topology?

The beauty which resides within those aforementioned fields are ridiculously abundant and glorious. There are even websites dedicated to showcasing the true glory and beauty behind pure/theoretical mathematics. Many mathematicians find a natural beauty within these fields, liken it to art and are appreciative of it. Even Leonardo da Vinci's study of the human physique, which was greatly needed at that specific time, was inspired by the sake of understanding and art alone. Have you ever heard of Art for Art's sake? Have you ever read A Mathematician's Apology? Have you ever witnessed pure mathematical beauty?

The Greeks, Romans/Italians and a slew of other amazing civilizations knew that a balance needed to exist between art and scientific learning/understanding. Those aforementioned nations are, in fact, mostly heralded for their beautiful literature and art. The sculptures? Their sketches? Their literature?

>Art exists to fill the void left in people now that there isn't a fight for survival.

As Pauli would say, it's not even wrong.

[Anonymous No.3243702]

>>3243679
>True people of science such as myself have no use for art

[Anonymous No.3243706]

>>3243702

>Implying that arts purpose is to make you feel good
>Implying its not artistic and aesthetic properties that gives science value

[Anonymous No.3244016]

>>3243706
>implying it is
I use science to make my life easier.

>>3243699
Ever hear of "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder"? Protip: it's not because beauty is a fundamental thing like mathematics. Beauty is an opinion and any scientific advancement made by it is coincidence

[Anonymous No.3244046]

Images that induce emotions, their value depends on subjective tastes and no subjective tastes are inherently superior to others, if they are more "refined" it is simply because you have been psychologically conditioned harder, it's about as meaningful as porn.

If they have any kind of message then that message could be communicated using abstract parsimonious terms, like a sequence of facts followed by a concise logical argument in high school diploma level layman's terms directly based on the facts and acknowledging limitations and inaccuracies in the final assertion.

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3244067]

>>3243699
This. Thread over.

[Anonymous No.3244081]

>>3243699
lol you actually believe "art" was the sole motivation for those things just because sometimes math is neat to look at?

If amusement was our sole motivation for things we'd be a lot stupider so I for one am glad art is a rather innocuous phenomena in our society and not anything bigger than that, let's put it that way.

[illuminati !AI9Lue1M.E!!KyzG4KHXtor No.3244107]

Science is the study of art. Many studies like the ones performed at CERN. Are the study of data visualization via Ultra Art pattern signatures.

[Anonymous No.3244112]

>>3243653
The difference between art and science is only a single letter in the basic questions they aim to answer.

What is?

What if?

[Anonymous No.3244233]

i like them both

[Anonymous No.3244581]

>>3244107
What is art to you? The universe? Can anyone in this thread offer a definition of art that is more complex than "feels good man?"

[Anonymous No.3244582]

Reported again.

[Anonymous No.3244586]

>>3244581

Rigidly defining art ruins it.

[Anonymous No.3244597]

>>3244586
Is it fair to argue that that's bullshit people make up to continue to believe their "feels good man" is respectable?

[Anonymous No.3244606]

>>3244597

Look at the history of art. New forms of art are always being created which don't fit the mold of their time.

[Anonymous No.3244637]

>>3244586
Why? I'm not saying emotions are fickle, they evolved for a reason, in fact by realizing they are just emotions you can give them deeper meaning. If art is supposed to send a message or be a novelty it is an inferior medium, if I wanted to send a message I'd abstractly define it, if I wanted to shock people out of their shells I'd take off all my clothes, smear faeces over myself, spraypaint swastikas everywhere and howl obscenities.

[Anonymous No.3245885]

>>3244606
Nothing you said applies to anything I said

[Anonymous No.3245895]

Don't you make this fucking shit thread again for fuck's sake I fucking swear I will rip your head off and shit down your neck.

[Anonymous No.3245915]

protip: there are no objective facts, even in science specific claims are relative to theories

You're certainly welcome to suppose that some theory is "real" but it's not obvious what is gained by that assertion, it seems to beg the question.

[Anonymous No.3245949]

factual truth has no other value but normative, and when comes down to the creative process, tapping into the unconsciousness, artists are so much ahead of us it's not even funny. all my respect.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3245978]

>>3243699
>Through art, one can realize the true beauty which lies within life

hohoho.... no. -.-

artist looks at flowers, sees petals.

scientist looks at flowers, sees petals and millions of cells and atoms and all sorts of crazy shit that is working in tandem with the rest of the solar system to maintain it's form.

[Anonymous No.3246085]

>>3245949
Patterns in factual truth lead us to new facts

[Anonymous No.3246166]

>>3245978
Seems to me like you've only ever been subjected to bad art.

[Anonymous No.3246245]

>>3246166
Subject me to good art then asshat. None of the artfags have provided any evidence beyond "feels good man" like I said they would

[Anonymous No.3246344]

Science is a form of art
/thread

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3246350]

>>3246344
and science is the most valuable form of art

[小白 !!RlhtPr81xr7 No.3246359]

Science teaches us about the world around us and more, while art teaches us how to look at the world around us and more.

There's probably a better way to say this but fuck if I can think of one.

[Anonymous No.3246372]

science is a art.

[Adalon !cla0aHFoM2 No.3246849]

Art provides unique perspectives and attention that could otherwise be ignored or missed through daily life. Without creativity and inspiration, rigid thinking and general stagnation in scientific development would significantly slow our growth as a society.

Basically, what I think science does with the tangible, art does just as well with the intangible; it's the overlap between the two that is responsible for the rapid advancement of culture and technology, not the standalone contributions of either.

[Anonymous No.3246862]

Art serves no function to society. It is useless and ought to be discouraged. Art will not bring us any closer to understanding. In rare cases it may be warranted, such as inspirational works (national anthems, Cosmos, etc.), but only inasmuch as the art inspires one to advance civilization.