Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, My intention in life has never been to say either parochial or equivocal things. I am neither a scientist or an artist. I'm merely someone who enjoys making snapshots with his leica and who wants to continue the process of learning how to play me cello. Clearly, I don't know what I am talking about. I'm going to stop riding this horse before it falls on me and I get my legs broken. Barney Bob Walkden wrote: > Hi, > > > Science, I think, does progress [...]. Art doesn't. > > As you say, it depends on what you mean by 'progress'. So if you claim > that progress in art and progress in science depend on different meanings > of 'progress' then the statement above is equivocation. > > Scientific progress can, I think, be measured in only 1 way: as an > increase in the sum of human knowledge. eg learning that microbes > rather than evil sprits cause diseases. > > The utilitarian measure of progress that people often apply - an > increase in the sum of human happiness - is probably a measure of social > progress rather than anything else. Understanding that infection is > caused by bacteria is a matter of scientific progress. Applying that > knowledge to curing diseases rather than to dropping biological bombs on > villages is a matter of social progress. I think this is enough to > demonstrate that scientific progress can't be measured by the change > in the sum of human happiness. > > However, if science increases human knowledge, it is certainly not the > only activity that does so. One other activity that can do this is > art: who would claim that the novels of Dickens, or Tolstoy or Camus > have not increased human knowledge? > > Progress in art, as you suggest, is not defined in terms such as > 'Snoop Doggy Dog is better than Mozart', or 'Jeff Koons is better than > Leonardo da Vinci'. Rather, I would suggest that progress in art comes > from expanding the boundaries of art and being able to justify this > expansion in art historical terms. In these terms Diane Arbus's work > probably does show that photography as art has progressed since Matthew > Brady's day. Of course this does not mean that Diane Arbus's work is somehow > superior to Matthew Brady's, or vice-versa. That sort of comparison is > meaningless. > > Incidentally, we haven't entirely "abandoned the notion that infection > is caused by foul humors and nasty spirits". I once met a man in > Zanzibar who had a similar ear condition to mine. Whereas my problems > are being corrected by surgery, he was placing his trust in djinns > living in a nearby cave. He was too poor to have a choice in the > matter, and his society is too poor to offer him a choice. I'm sure it > wouldn't take much searching among the religious and the New Agers in > our societies to find people who actively choose djinns and spirits (by > whatever name) over science. > > --- > > Bob > > mailto:bob@web-options.com > > Saturday, June 30, 2001, 12:27:55 PM, you wrote: > > > Bob, > > > Thank you for a chance to state what I meant with a bit more precision. I argee with > > you. Art history progresses. So does musicology. New techniques are discovered. > > Newer, more accurate information comes to light. Old things long lost are found. I > > also agree that art, at least some of the time, builds on what came before. But, I do > > not think that art "progresses" in the same sense that science does. > > > I would argue that it was progress when we abandonned the notion that infection was > > caused by foul humors and nasty spirits and figured out that it was caused by > > microbes. One notion is demonstrably not correct and the other has helped create a > > healthier place to live. Matthew Brady's photographs are certainly different than > > those of Diane Arbus. I hesitate to call the journey from one to the other progress > > because it's much harder to make the case that one is superior to the other. I much > > prefer to say that art changes or evolves. > > > There are, of course, people who are more than glad to attempt to make the case that > > one form or art is superior to the another. And, I agree, this is where the notion > > of method comes into to play. I don't think that you can demonstrate that folk music > > is "better" than rock in the same sense that you can demonstrate that the > > acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth is 16 ft/sec/sec. Quite the > > contrary. Art is exempt from this requirement. Science isn't. > > > If art progresses, and I don't think it does, then it certainly progresses in a very > > different sense of the word than science. I certainly argee with you in that method > > makes them different. But, I also think that these vastly different notions of > > progress are also one of the things which make art and science different. I don't > > mean to quibble. For me art and science move in such different ways that I prefer to > > use totally different words to describe this motion. We may disagree. That's fine. > > After all, it's the LUG. > > > Barney