Exploring Relationship Between Art & Science

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christopher Sayer on June 1, 2009 at 10:53am

Do you think that the boundaries are made more rigid by the way in which we are now educated? I was lucky enough to go to an old university in which, even though I read a scientific subject, I was awarded a Master of Arts. Originally, it was considered the ''Art of Science'' and only now have we forced the division so rigidly. Perhaps the school and university examination systems bear some blame.

Interestingly, Christopher Wren is remembered for his fabulous architecture but was, at first calling, an accomplished mathematician. In the 17th century perhaps there was a very more liberal attitude to such distinctions.

An example of the reverse, where Art could be considered to be applied to Science, is when Kekule, in the 19th century, first premoted the idea that the model for benzene should be a ring; apparently he had the image of a snake biting its own tail. Although then backed by empiric observation nevertheless shows the importance of applying artistic modelling to chemistry.

I agree and say ''yes!''

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 2, 2009 at 9:24am

Thank you. Yes, slowly the boundaries are melting away. I am glad many artists are now experimenting with science themes. However, some of them are making a few mistakes & the art work they are creating is a bit unbearable to scientists (Please see my blogs on this subject on this network). Hope they would create some good work in the future.
Krishna

cite>Christopher Sayer said:

Do you think that the boundaries are made more rigid by the way in which we are now educated? I was lucky enough to go to an old university in which, even though I read a scientific subject, I was awarded a Master of Arts. Originally, it was considered the ''Art of Science'' and only now have we forced the division so rigidly. Perhaps the school and university examination systems bear some blame.

Interestingly, Christopher Wren is remembered for his fabulous architecture but was, at first calling, an accomplished mathematician. In the 17th century perhaps there was a very more liberal attitude to such distinctions.

An example of the reverse, where Art could be considered to be applied to Science, is when Kekule, in the 19th century, first premoted the idea that the model for benzene should be a ring; apparently he had the image of a snake biting its own tail. Although then backed by empiric observation nevertheless shows the importance of applying artistic modelling to chemistry.

I agree and say ''yes!''

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 8:50am

Reply by mjfaustino arsatelier 19 hours ago
Hello Dr. Krishna,

I agree. It has always been that way...
Reply by Mario Faustino 19 hours ago

Hello Dr. Krishna,

Yes I think so. Especially if you work with fragile materials (e.g. wax, paper (photography) gesso) care begins most immediately...


Reply by Kuesta 9 hours ago
Interesting post !!
Hello Dr Krishna:
Interesting post. I think that the separation is artificial

Reply by elizabethbelhadj 15 hours ago

Well yes, archaeology, is the retrieval of ancient artifacts that derive from past artists' and is classified as a science. scientific artistry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 9:54am

Reply by Lavinia Young on May 31, 2009 at 10:28am

Hi Dr Krishna

I am pleased and surprised when you say that 'experience and age' are given importance in the world of art..
I am not so sure that this holds totally true however.

I have noticed a trend of 'ageism' creeping in..'young, brash and emerging artists' seem to be in favour, sometimes I feel more for the fact that they are controversial or have a persona that can be marketed than for the actual quality of their work.

I hope that I am wrong

Lavinia

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on May 31, 2009 at 10:43am

Thanks for the reply. I am surprised my discussion has created so much interest & invited such a response on various networks. (I posted it on 16 networks). Well, I read about & experienced these differences myself. Surely, "Experience& age " are given more importance here. Work of young artists is overlooked or given less importance. Show me an auction house that gives importance to new & upcoming artists. Even while accepting to organise shows galleries ask for experience here! If you are new, you don't stand a chance. This is the complaint of all new artists-not mine. Most of the People want to buy the work of old masters.
youngsters & new artists can sensationalize a few works of theirs but can't compare themselves to the old masters in this field.
Krishna

Lavinia Young said:

Hi Dr Krishna
I am pleased and surprised when you say that 'experience and age' are given importance in the world of art.. I am not so sure that this holds totally true however.

I have noticed a trend of 'ageism' creeping in..'young, brash and emerging artists' seem to be in favour, sometimes I feel more for the fact that they are controversial or have a persona that can be marketed than for the actual quality of their work.

I hope that I am wrong

Lavinia

▶ Reply to This

elizabethbelhadj Permalink Reply by elizabethbelhadj on May 31, 2009 at 3:37pm

Its' good to show respect, on the whole.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Netta Yudkevich on July 28, 2009 at 10:39pm

There are different aspects of the relationship between art and science. First of all - the technical. The production of paints, pigments, varnishes, different solutions is a science by itself. Some other forms of art, such as music, is impossible without the creation of musical instruments. The physics of the sound is essential in its production.
Another aspect of the cooperation of the art and science is the direct use of the mathematics in art in order to establish the laws of composition. Artists and mathematicians of the Renaissance were trying to calculate the laws of harmony and perfect proportions.
Piero dela Francheska, who was an artist, wrote a book about the laws of the perspective. He is considered to be the founder of descriptive geometry. His student –Luki Pacholli had published another book “Divine Proportions.”
Modernism made another attempt – to express the unconscious mind. Personally, I am not sure how much of a science is in this method of painting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on July 29, 2009 at 9:27am

Thanks for your reply, Netta. Art Lab is created to explore the relationship between art & science. Science helps art in many ways. I am still exploring the relationship. I am still studying. This might go on for ever. However, I added some discussions on this aspect in the group research.
Warm regards
Krishna

Netta Yudkevich said:

There are different aspects of the relationship between art and science. First of all - the technical. The production of paints, pigments, varnishes, different solutions is a science by itself. Some other forms of art, such as music, is impossible without the creation of musical instruments. The physics of the sound is essential in its production.
Another aspect of the cooperation of the art and science is the direct use of the mathematics in art in order to establish the laws of composition. Artists and mathematicians of the Renaissance were trying to calculate the laws of harmony and perfect proportions.
Piero dela Francheska, who was an artist, wrote a book about the laws of the perspective. He is considered to be the founder of descriptive geometry. His student –Luki Pacholli had published another book “Divine Proportions.”
Modernism made another attempt – to express the unconscious mind. Personally, I am not sure how much of a science is in this method of painting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GOPI KANTA GHOSH on October 1, 2011 at 11:22am

They are same if go by truth...not identical if choice is myth...

• ▶ Reply