|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 5, 2020 17:04:42 GMT
There's an awful lot of science to be found in art, music and cinema. Leonardo da Vinci studied a lot of anatomy, mathematics of perspective, and optics to practice his painting. Music also has a great mathematical underpinning, found in the tempered scale used by J. S. Bach, and in the design of musical instruments. And of course, the formal name of the organization that gives out the Oscars includes the word "sciences". I think there's "science" in pretty much everything to the extent that it can be studied empirically, and most everything can. The way I approached this is less about can something be studied/approached scientifically, and more about how much the doing of those things requires science. The creation of art, music, cinema, etc. more requires practice and honing one's instinct and intuitions as to what looks good, sounds good, etc. It's also still something of a mystery as to why some art (broad sense) moves us profoundly and some art does not. Is it possible to scientifically say why Veritigo is considered a masterpiece and The Room is considered so-bad-it's-good? I'm hoping neuroaesethetics will help to bring some scientific understanding to the issue, but it's a pretty young field. If we want to draw a line, we could categorize according to how important an "eye" (or in general a sense of aesthetics) play a role in the categories, and how important talent is in practicing those arts or sciences. At one end of the spectrum might be poetry and at the other end perhaps chemistry. Coming from a scientific background I'm always quick to appreciate the technical component of visual artists such as da Vinci, yet at the same time my musical appreciation is very intuitive and non-technical (I tend to get lost in technical discussions about the sonata form as used by Beethoven for instance). A strong mix of engineering skills and artistry was highly valued by the Florentine artists of the Renaissance. |
|
