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

[Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>]

"Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com> wrote:
[...]
> I would hope, from an artistic standpoint that by 'looking' over the
> shoulders of these visionaries, or through their cameras, as it were, that
> some of that 'vision' would rub off on me! Alas, as You pointed out, they
> are artists, and what they do is art- it is unfortunately something that is
> very hard to teach!
> Science, and the scientific method is taught, or at least when I was in
> school, from about the junior high level onward, and is a technique that is
> easy to learn.
> Yes, if what Adams, and Weston, Lange, Cunningham and others did and do were
> a science, it could be taught, and there would be countless photographers of
> that ilk out and about everywhere! No, they are a special breed apart from
> science.

I think that you understate both the ease of learning science, and
the importance of teaching in artistic development.

While it's true that the *operations* of scientific investigation are
generally straightforward, it can be argued (persuasively, I think) that
creativity is immensely important for doing genuinely novel work, and
that such creativity has many of the characterisitcs of artistic 
production. It sure doesn't happen through rote learning. 

Likewise, the technical *operations* of photography must be learned, 
and can be taught; as can formulae for various genres of phtography
(or any other art). In both science and art, the ability to produce
technically cometent work can be taught; but the capacity to produce
original and lasting work cannot *just* be taught.

There are differences between art and science, but I think that they 
lie in places other than those that you've highlighted above. 


> As to the second part of your post- the findings of the scientists are
> sometimes put to use by the artists, and thus science is rather the tool of
> the artist, and not their 'method'. The artists that built the pyramids, to
> carry your idea further, used the science of geometry and physics, to
> assemble a structure of monumental proportions. The photographer, using the
> scientific efforts of the chemists and physicists who discover and develop
> the basic principles of the science of photochemistry, can construct their
> works, and assemblage of science used to express the artists feelings, and
> ideas.

Closer to my own impressions. Example: Imogen Cunningham - mentioned
in your
list - had a B.S. in chemistry (U. of Washington) and a M.S. in photographic
chemistry (obtained in Germany). She's still my favorite 'formal' 
photographer.

> Capturing the heartbreak and despair of the depression, as Lange did, or the
> majesty of nature, as Adams did, cannot be called science- it doesn't
> advance the sum of 'knowledge'- it advances the human spirit.
> Science is about knowing- Art is about feeling. Both are intrinsic to
> mankind, but as separate as hands and feet!

And as connected ;-). Think about Harold Edgerton. 

- -Alexey