Re: art&science

From: Natasha Vita-More (
Date: Mon Apr 10 2000 - 09:10:43 MDT

At 11:05 PM 4/9/00 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>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?

Yes. The arts acts as an umbrella for many modes of art and each of these
has many different subsets. Within the modes and the subsets there must be
a common language or the artists would not be able to communicate. If an
artists studies a discipline she or he needs to use a specific language.
On a broader scale, across the domains of the arts, the language is
understood, regardless of using different nouns. For example, filmmakers
communicating with actors = two disciplines of art but working together.
Another example is a computer graphics designer and an animator. Both
artists studied different areas of the arts, but they work together and
share a common vocabulary.


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