|
|
|
|
|
Parallelisms in Art and Science
|
|
|
Parallelisms in Art and Science Most people consider art and science to be two totally opposite fields. The former relies on the subjective side of man whereas the other is concerned with objectivity. However, certain aspects are common to art and science. In ‘Interpretation in Science and Art’, Harold Osborne lays down the commonalities and differences between the two. Osborne defines science as “[interpreting] the world by bringing order and regularity into the kaleidoscopic variety of experience, subduing its vagaries in the interest of understanding.” Furthermore, the basic principles and concepts in science are formulated not by deduction or logical reasoning but through intuition. Many, if not all of the great discoveries in science began as intuitive insights which were verified by observation later on. Examples would be Planck’s quantum hypothesis, Pauli’s exclusion principle, and Einstein’s attribution of deflection of light to the curvature of space, among others. Art, on the other hand, concerns itself with creating “perceptible constructs… [for] the enrichment of perceptual experience and adding to the cultural heritage of mankind.” Perceptible constructs are thought of to be direct apprehension of the world as opposed to theoretical knowledge about it. Representational artists would depict a part of the phenomenal world in the hopes of creating a perceptible construct which can claim appreciation as an aesthetic object. Perceptual unity in every work i.e., viewing the art as coalescing and coherently compact whole enables us to expand our vision and perceptual powers. Comparing art and science, Osborne lays down the following to be the most important comparisons between them: (i) Both bring new order into the world; (ii) A scientific theory once accepted is in principle common property whereas interpretation in the arts relies on subjectivity and individuality; (iii) Both originate as an act of creative insight which cannot be reduced to rule; (iv) Imaginary situations have no place in science whereas in the arts, they make a major contribution; (v) Scientific interpretation is open and invariant for every man unlike in the arts which requires a special skill or ability to be able to appreciate its products; and (vi) Science deals with things that can be quantified as common to individual in the mass while subject matter in the art may deal with quality and interpretation is supremely individual.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
