Re: [Leica] Soapbox discussion about art and science- was PHD Qualifications!

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Touché!
Point well taken!
I hadn't thought of it quite like that!
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Soapbox discussion about art and science- was PHD
Qualifications!


> Dan,
>
> > Well, I seemed to has misstated my point- I meant SCIENCE and the search
> for
> > basic knowledge- to compare artists such as Weston, Adams, et al. is
again
> > an argument of Apples and Oranges!
> > They didn't further knowledge, scientifically speaking; Their subjective
> > view of the world was what made them so wonderful. The could 'see' and
at
> > the same time, through their eyes, help US see the world in ways that we
> had
> > never seen it. That was their appeal, to our affect, our emotions. They
> were
> > not scientists, per se, but visionaries who saw the world differently,
and
> > helped us see it the same way.
>
>     To help us see the world differently is the mark of the highest level
of
> science. The classic examples are Newtonian mechanics which helped the
world
> understand the motion of the planets around the sun and then Einstein who
> changed this world-view. Other examples are Darwin and then Watson and
Crick
> who have changed the world-view with respect to the origin of the species
> (and humanity). The world-view is a central notion of science and hence
> comparison to Weston, Adams et al. is quite relevent.
>
>     Science is more about changing the world-view using theories validated
> by evidence than it is about increasing a volume of facts. There is often
> alot of art in good science and alot of science in good art.
>
> Jonathan Borden
>
>