* Sean Russell (ser / germane-software.com) [020511 17:08]:
> 1) In Art, you create something that exists to be interpreted, and often, 
> the more ambiguity, the better.  The same art communicates something 
> different to each person.
> 2) In science, you want no ambiguity.  Interpretation isn't a factor.  If 
> the same science communicates something different to each viewer, you've 
> failed.

Bah.

Art applies politics to the products of science to convey subjectivity,
but when good is objective.

Science applies politics to the art of experimentation to convey
objectivity, but when good is subjective.

In many senses art is more permanent than science -- consider how we can
arrive across the ages at consensus interpretations of a work of art,
held to be subjective at the time of it's creation; while the current
value of science across the ages is mostly subjective, even though a
theory was held to be objective at the time of its creation/acceptance.

Scientists (and scientific historians) would like us to believe that the
product and foundation of science is Truth and the Objective, and that
the tools of science are method and process, but the entire history of
science belies this -- the scientist is a creator, his most valuable
tool is inspiration, all else is benchwork.  When his product is Good it
is believed to hold by those with influence, but will ultimately fall to
later theory and social bias.

The artist (or more often the art critic) would like us to believe that
the foundation of art is the Subjective, and that the tools of the
artist are creativity and inspiration in a vacuum, when in fact the
artist works firmly within the context of history and hones his tools
and his medium through long practice and apprenticeship.  The art
community is rife with creativity but only the skilled become Great.
When the artist's product is Good it conveys meaning across the leagues
of time.

Neither art nor science is truly objective nor subjective.  Both derive
their value from the application of politics -- art and science apart
from interpretation and social impact are empty.  Art and science are
much closer than either side would care to admit.

Rick
-- 
 http://www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN: 704    (88 F)
                       |  a bit fewer bills
   random email haiku  |  I do intend to make it
                       |  down here more often.