Re: art&science

Date: Sun Apr 09 2000 - 20:07:10 MDT

In a message dated 4/9/2000 2:06:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
> 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).

You are discounting invention and application. Friction and centrifugal
force are *discovered*, but the ways in which these things are put to use can
be quite different.
> 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.
> Am I wrong?

It really isn't a matter of defining what the differences are, it is defining
how they affect one another, and what influences the concurrent technologies
have upon each other.

Michelangelo did not use Unix, or lasers, or bandwidth. Today's art is not
defined by the same parameters of the Ancients.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:11 MDT