Art, as a way of thinking is more academic than the sciences & maths

OK, I have this debate with arts people and non arts people, with varying responses. It stemmed from a heated discussion between an Engineer and an Art History specialist....

Is art, as a way of thinking, a higher form of academia than the sciences?

I won't write my beliefs just yet as I would like open and honest responses first.

 

I'm not sure I can see how the comparison would work. What I mean is "as a way of thinking" puts the two together and they both come from different parts of the brain ie right and left.

Personaly I'd consider the sciences more academic because they are investigating the unknown with a given and strict method while the arts are searching for a relative truth with any method possible. Meaning a truth spawning from art is open to interpratation more than truth from science.

 

I do not agree entirely, because mathematics and science are closely linked with the arts. Mathematical and geometric designs and concepts are prevalent and are an important part of art and Western aesthetics.

 

Meaning a truth spawning from art is open to interpratation more than truth from science.

Of course, this proposes a problem in itself. What is truth? There are many "facts" in science that I do not hold as truths, but as mere misguided myths. You, on the otherhand, might view the truths I hold as false. So science and truth itself is open to interpretation.

 

Scinece and math were created in the beginning for the human race to discover, yet the humans create art by themselves. That is why I look at the arts with more admiration than math and science. The same with literature. I get a certain fulfillment when I sing, write, dance, act, and, more to the point of this thread, paint or draw, because I know it's the expression of a human being that was not here before that person drew it. That sounds fake and corny but it's true.

 

The disciplines of math and science were created by man as tools to discover the principles that govern the universe. They are just as, if not more, life affirming and noble as art, which primarily deals with human emotion and not with the rational aspects of man.

Queenie Amidala, truth and fact are two different things. Truth is the purview of religion and philosophy, while facts are the territory of the sciences, although there is certainly overlap. Science is not as much open for interpretation as it is for debate. Usually when there is disagreement, it is because new facts have been discovered that call into question old theories, showing that there was a flaw in the old way of thinking. When new discoveries are made, it does not mean that the laws of the universe have changed, it means that we had incomplete or wrong ideas about what those laws are.

 

i don't understand why people feel the need to compare.

 

I get the same fufilment when I do some math problems that others get when they paint a portrait. Who's to say which one is the more "academic?"

The way I look at it is art is using simple tools to answer broad questions, while maths and sciences use advanced tools to answer specific questions. I do not think they are comporable in any way.

 

not all art uses such simple tools.

there are new media artists out there who use technology to make art.

laurie andersen's performance pieces utilizes actual inventions she's created that deals with sound and the body's relationship with it.

and there's joshua davis of praystation (http://praystation.com) who does some amazing flash work that i'm pretty sure involve some mathamtical formulas in their scripting.

 

I suppose there are those instances of when art and science are blended. That doesn't really make the apples and oranges situation into apples and apples, though... if you follow my drift.

 

Interesting responses. Thankyou.

 

I feel that we have yet to define academia in the course of discussion of this topic.

As someone who is highly tilted towards the maths and sciences, I must say that this field is commonly considered to be more academic than the arts. In school, there is a greater emphasis placed on whether students can get into the triple science (bio, chem, physics) stream, rather than on their subject combinations in the arts.

However, I feel that the sciences and maths are very much research work or application. In that sense, this leaves very little space for exploration of the topic, unlike the arts. I feel that the arts allows greater use of tools from a simpler level, while the sciences requires use of precise methods and instruments.

 

Is art, as a way of thinking, a higher form of academia than the sciences?

No. Very much no. Academia implies formalism and convention. Art defies such things. Academics are free to study and analyze art, but art is not academic.

 

This is good. Thankyou again. I will chime in with my response soon.

It is interesting to note that in the original "animated conversation" between the Engineer and Art Historian the notes made thus far were not mentioned.