Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FlyingTeapot)
    I will direct you to your nearest 'Game of Thrones' billboard. Or the TV adverts, which didn't just fall out of the camera like that but were carefully edited to get their point across. The first season alone had 9 million viewers in America. It's a trivial example, but to say that art will not affect the world in some way is a bit ignorant.

    Every propaganda poster you've ever seen, any moving photograph of a revolution in a newspaper, any advertisement for washing up liquid on television, any company logo, even the Picasso painting 'Guernica' which shocked people in it's graphic depiction of the Spanish Civil War, is a form of art as the dictionary defines it. Maybe art *******ised for commercial purposes, but art nonetheless.

    Art, whether in verbal, visual or aural form, is about communication. Science is about observation and theorisation. Often they need each other. Science has provided incredible vehicles for art to communicate with people, and likewise most people find out about the discoveries of scientists through art - even if it's only a diagramme in a textbook.
    But adverts and propaganda influence, not change. POlitics change it and propaganda supports it. The tv series (acting), based on a novel, is supported by adverts....not the other way around.

    :facepalm2: A diagram is not art. A graph is not art. Please don't confuse them and now claim everytime pencil hits paper and does not draw a letter or number, it is art. That is horribly wrong. However don't confuse what I am saying with "art is crap and has no place and does nothing!!!", as that too is rubbish. Art has an important place and helps a vast amount...but it's influence compared to books or science (historically) has been minimal in comparison.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enavor)
    I said I wouldn't reply, but you got me. Particularly with this one.

    Original thinking, thought and rationale is the starting point to all knowledge (of any kind). You need to think in order to know (rightly or wrongly).

    Originality, creativity, novelty what ever you want to call it is "artistic" and not scientific because as I said before science is a method whereas thoughts are expressions and I'd go as far as to say emotions. Further more science doesn't have the faintest idea what thought or consciousness is as of yet.

    Thinking is art because its an internal expression not bounded by the scientific method.

    Explain to me how original thought is not art? What is thought to you then, science? because if so you'll win a nobel prize since that can't be proved as of yet.
    So you're saying that all thought is art? Thought in itself is neither for me, you can hardly class thought as an "art" or "science".

    art
    /ärt/
    Noun

    The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
    Works produced by such skill and imagination.
    https://www.google.com.my/#output=se...w=1366&bih=629

    As you can see here, art is the expression/application of the original thought and imagination - not the original thought in itself.

    Thought is not expression at all - I'm not sure where you got that from? "Internal expression" is an oxymoron.

    Anyway, I said that sometimes to come with a scientific hypothesis (the ones that lead to groundbreaking discoveries in particular), original thought and some creativity is required. However, it is not simply the expression of original thought and creativity - there must be some factual basis for it, and it must be testable by the scientific method.

    I think I clearly understand your argument now. I agree that original thought and creativity is required in science. However, I disagree that original thought in itself is art, and likewise for creativity. The pure expression of these two things is what constitutes art, for me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiella)
    I find a lot of arty people a bit pretentious, but I wouldn't say they're any more "attention-seeking" than those who create stuff in general that's meant for public consumption. You woudn't say a scientist was attention seeking for building an invention everyone could use
    1000X this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justinawe)
    So you're saying that all thought is art? Thought in itself is neither for me, you can hardly class thought as an "art" or "science".



    https://www.google.com.my/#output=se...w=1366&bih=629

    As you can see here, art is the expression/application of the original thought and imagination - not the original thought in itself.

    Thought is not expression at all - I'm not sure where you got that from? "Internal expression" is an oxymoron.

    Anyway, I said that sometimes to come with a scientific hypothesis (the ones that lead to groundbreaking discoveries in particular), original thought and some creativity is required. However, it is not simply the expression of original thought and creativity - there must be some factual basis for it, and it must be testable by the scientific method.

    I think I clearly understand your argument now. I agree that original thought and creativity is required in science. However, I disagree that original thought in itself is art, and likewise for creativity. The pure expression of these two things is what constitutes art, for me.
    The "internal thought" phrase was an oxymoron, I didn't know how else to convey it - although I know you understand what I meant.

    I'd like to change my argument slightly.

    I believe thought is artistic in essence because thought is subjective, even in science. What I mean to say is that individual thoughts change all the time (just like art does) and may appear irrational to come to solutions (be that in science, language, the arts et al) Whereas science is more concrete, rarely changes and is more of a methodology to pursue knowledge, but isn't knowledge in itself.

    Subjectivity and fluidity is closer in the artistic sense than science, which is more rigid, set in stone and more objective. Thought just doesn't work the way science does, it changes all the time (like the chapter of a novel) and that's an inevitable fact. Science for the most part remains consistent.

    I also believe thought is guided by emotion constantly (even in the pursuit of science) and rationality and emotion are in direct contrast to one another, that's another speculation why I'd like to nominate thoughts as being artistic.

    Francis Bacon formulated the scientific method before it even existed, imagine how many thoughts he had to go through before he finally found out this was the correct method. He quite literally "invented science" and to me, that's art.

    To conclude: I believe thought is artistic because of its subjective and ever changing nature (which is highly comparative to the arts), whereas science is objective, rarely changes and must rely on rules; a significant contrast. This is why I'm saying all thought is a form of art.

    I see where your coming from that you believe thought is something not easily defined, which I think is an exceptionally intelligent answer - I can only define it based on what I think are logical comparisons, but I'll never be able to prove what thought is. I hate proofs - I do too many of them.

    I think this is why my scientific peers hate me so much, they probably think I'm a traitor.

    Time for the pub with the boys! Cheers for the debate.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    Bizarre things students have spent their loans onThings you should budget for at uni

    Sponsored features:

    Making money from your own website

    Need some cash?

    How to make money running your own website.

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.