|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 5, 2019 21:10:55 GMT
To you, art is more important*, and yet science receives more financing. How do you reconcile yourself to this?
*yes, I'm making an assumption
|
|
|
Post by Inspector Norse on Feb 5, 2019 21:55:26 GMT
Art isn't more important, it's more interesting to us personally. Science is more valuable in terms of helping us survive, advance, progress, work. Science allows us to enjoy art.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Feb 5, 2019 22:23:27 GMT
You become blase about advancements in science so quickly. In the end they become as normal as having running hot water or somebody taking the garbage away every 2nd week. I don't feel the same about art though even if objectively I can understand why one is naturally more funded than the other (curing cancer would be nice for example). I'm never blase about art. In fact, more than ever I find myself becoming more appreciative of great films or pop music or whatever as I get older. Maybe that's just done to greater life experience that breathes extra significance into art as you find yourself wrestling with the complexities of life in more profound ways. I mean we are all searching for some kind of meaning to our lives. Art is human beings wrestling with this question.
The importance of art in society is a big subject that many artists have tackled. It interests me for obvious reasons but it's hard to talk about it with many people. Sometimes I think back to medieval times when life was immeasurably harder and I think about the importance of a painting of a religious icon or a novel in peoples lives. It's humbling to think, you know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 22:25:13 GMT
art is more appealing
science is necessary
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Feb 6, 2019 9:12:23 GMT
I'm not sure I make that much of a distinction between the two. I think there's an inherent search for understanding in both, a beauty, and they're both driven by human intelligence to get the end result. I mean, consider VS Ramachandran's solution to the problem of people who get excruciating pain from the limbs they no longer have following amputation. He created a treatment where the patients have sessions where they view and move their limbs via a simple device with a mirror, which meant that the mirrored remaining limb looks like it temporarily replaced the missing limb, and this was found to work. That sounds like an artistic solution. Einstein's 'thought experiments', picturing people being hit on a train by lightning, and being observed from a distance, which led to the theory of relativity. Art leading to science. Even in the end, there's not always a definite purpose to science, just an end result which can be proved to be correct or incorrect, which is the difference to art.
On the question of funding, I've just finished Cosey Fanni Tutti's autobiography. She pleads poverty throughout, but there's a section about actually getting arts grants funding for Coum transmissions 'art actions'. Most of these sound pretty horrible, 5ft double-ended dildos inserted into orifices, used tampons covered in maggots, whatever. I'm not judging, and fair play to her if she enjoyed it all, but there seems something slightly wrong to me about actually being given thousands of pounds to do this stuff. Y'know, earn the money yourself, fund it yourself. The funding question is more complicated for science. There's day jobs of tutoring, the extreme costs of medicines, the actual campaigning for charitable funds from benefactors by universities. It seems less clear what "funding for science means".
|
|