Re: Why paint?
- From: Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:25:08 -0700
On Oct 30, 10:43 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is a better statement of the question? My apologies.
"Better" inovlves a value judgement. As do many
aspects of art. And that is a large part of the
answer to your question.
Why exclude the symbolism of art making from
science when it is simply a personal variation of
mathematics--and, does this very human of
activities from our earliest records (Lascaux,
France), really diifer from our perception
of 'reality' today, say, as explained by either
classical, quantum, or 'new' physics?"
GHD/RHN
Well, you get Loki points for a run-on sentence.
The *symbolism* of "art making" is not excluded
from science. There are scientific studies of the
symbolism portion. As there are studies of many
other aspects of art. Such as why certain shapes
have an impact that others don't, as an example.
And the question "how do we know that the painting
at Lascaux is this old?" is properly part of science.
However, art involves judgement. This image or
that, this shape or that, this colour or that, based
on personal preferences. These are not part of
science. Such things are part of other human
activities, and studied in other places. Usually
by other people, since the skills are quite divergent.
But none of that is on topic in physics. And you
are in a physics news group.
Socks
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why paint?
- From: RH Nigl
- Re: Why paint?
- References:
- RE: Why paint?
- From: RH Nigl
- RE: Why paint?
- Prev by Date: Re: DamnInteresting.COM is... well... more interesting than Sci.Phy...
- Next by Date: Re: Space Foreshortning (an original theory)
- Previous by thread: RE: Why paint?
- Next by thread: Re: Why paint?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|