Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Science & Art - Reality - Proof & Perception

Earlier I used to wonder why there are different parameters in Science & Art to judge a "GOOD" work. Now, I feel, these are the reasons for the differences:
In Science, a person is treated good & given importance & respect based on his "work" irrespective of his age or experience. Because all scientific work can be proved & all scientific theories can stand the tests of scrutiny. Science is based on proof & reality.
However, in Art a person is treated good in a different manner. "Goodness" of a work is a perception here & not based on proof or reality. If you depend on "perception" which is again based on your ability to "relate" to the work, You cannot prove beyond doubt that the work is the best unlike in the field of science. So experience & age is given importance here.
Share

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of SCI-ART LAB to add comments!

Join SCI-ART LAB

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 4, 2009 at 9:22am: Reply by Kuesta 2 hours ago

I agree with them Very good !!

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 10:05am: Reply by Heinrich 1 day ago

Probably it equally important that the artist knows how to market and promote his/her work. To show the work to as many people as possible is probably a good start.
Does art follow a kind of fashion or general trends? Are these trends global or more local?
You are kicking off a very fascinating discussion!
Heinrich

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa 22 hours ago

Thanks for the reply. I am glad this discussion got so many replies on various networks. Yes, internet helps us do exactly that. My work is seen all over the world now & I am happy about that.
Yes, artists follow some trends both global & local. However, I believe in setting trends & not following them. My Art from Science is a new trend & I am glad people are appreciating it.
Krishna

Michael Dechant Permalink Reply by Michael Dechant 1 day ago

yes i agree with your opinion. Let me say that art is more subconscious and science more consciousness. Science trys to explain the world around us and art is bringing the world in ourselfs to a global reality. There is a link between this two worlds. In our deepest thoughts nothing is impossible. But there is a interface between the world in us and the world outside us. If you link this two worlds.....there is always transfer of information...and then...you can find out what exactly that is. Art for example is always a transfer of information between this two worlds. And I say worlds not only because my english is not as good as i want;) But to explain what i mean...if you look in a mirror...and you think something...does your reflection also think? Are you sure that you are the original?

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa 22 hours ago

Thanks. Reflections don't think. Only brains of human beings think. This is a scientific reality.
These days I am trying to understand the differences or relationship between art & science. This is a wonderful journey & I am trying to share all that I am learning in the process with the world.
Krishna

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 9:37am: Reply by Claudio Fontán on May 31, 2009 at 4:25pm

very good!!!

thanks
Claudio

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 9:29am: Reply by Christopher Sayer on 31 May 2009 at 6:21am

Yes, you do not see many scientists launching ''retrospectives'' of their work. I am a director of an art school in London where we train many young artists and rarely, although there has been one very notable exception, does any of them receive recognition or, to keep them in food, commissions. Only later in life are they ''perceived'' as good and earlier works considered interesting.
Sadly, much of the public have to be told what is good in art and, as we all know, fashions change.