Does science destroy (meaningful) creative thinking? - General

Hello Facepunch, Allow me to quickly introduce myself, I'm a sixteen year old student from Belgium and I'm nearing the end of secondary school. As such, I am required to make a personal project, to be presented at the end of this year. Being heavily drawn to art and creativity, the subject I chose to examine was the influence of science with regard to individual, meaningful, creative thinking and the ability to use that which makes us human: our imagination. Personally, I feel like science deadens a person's capability to imagine (putting aside all the good things science has brought us). I'd like to use the sun as an example here. Many years ago, humans would know near-nothing of the sun, except that it appeared during the day, and it disappeared during the night. They credited it for being the incentive of life itself, making beautiful art and idols in honor of the sun in the process. But now, scientific discoveries have declared that the sun (and every star for that matter) is basically nothing more than a mass in which nuclear reactions take place (or atleast that's what I've been told). Boom, there goes everything unique about the sun; it's a hot, boring globe to me now. And yes, scientific things have made new forms of art possible, but more often than not, it's nothing more than 'just' awesome or pretty artwork, which can, of course, still be enjoyed (again, this is [i]my[/i] opinion, please do defend yours). There are exceptions, but I believe that the digital age is having an extremely bad impact on meaningful art and the creativeness that comes with it. If you guys could spare a moment, I would appreciate any thoughts regarding the subject, pro, contra or neutral- every voice is worth being heard. Thanks beforehand

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783056]Personally, I feel like science deadens a person's capability to imagine (putting aside all the good things science has brought us).[/QUOTE] I think a massive flaw in your argument is that the vast majority of pre-enlightenment art is really quite unimaginative compared to the average shit on Deviant Art today.

I don't see how the sun still is a majestic globe but instead we know how it can exist and why. I'd rather know what happens and create more realistic artwork than not knowing what I draw/paint/make. As you said science made new forms of art possible, but it also made new artworks as a whole. Before we knew how the universe existed we weren't able to draw/paint it, now we can. And you can see a lot of beautiful pieces of the universe. Arguably, before we knew how the sun worked it was a hot, boring globe. Just sitting there. Ofcourse, this is only the sun and the universe we're talking about. Science did a lot more than that. This ofcourse is my opinion.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;28783170]I think a massive flaw in your argument is that the vast majority of pre-enlightenment art is really quite unimaginative compared to the average shit on Deviant Art today.[/QUOTE] True, but it also held a lot of historic and social value, whereas the 'average shit' on Deviant Art rarely does, atleast not to me. Although that may be because we're living in the digital age as we speak- perhaps future generations will be able to extract more meaning from it than we currently do. [QUOTE=eXiv2]I don't see how the sun still is a majestic globe but instead we know how it can exist and why. I'd rather know what happens and create more realistic artwork than not knowing what I draw/paint/make. As you said science made new forms of art possible, but it also made new artworks as a whole. Before we knew how the universe existed we weren't able to draw/paint it, now we can. And you can see a lot of beautiful pieces of the universe. Arguably, before we knew how the sun worked it was a hot, boring globe. Just sitting there. Ofcourse, this is only the sun and the universe we're talking about. Science did a lot more than that. This ofcourse is my opinion. [/QUOTE] I'll agree with you on the fact that science has broadened our spectrum for phenomena to give meaning to. As for your statement that the sun was a hot, boring globe before we knew how it worked; it shaped a lot of ancient Egyptian culture, the mythic tale of Phaëton, the Trundholm sun chariot, ... . Each of them holding great amounts of cultural ideals, convictions, etc. Thanks for the input, both of you.

dark age art: [img]http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/b/k/aif_1340_75_02.jpg[/img] Modern Artwork [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ks9pc6ENJo1qa2mp8o1_500.jpg[/img] INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] And my opinion is that it doesn't matter if art has a "meaning" or not. See Exit Through the Gift Shop.

If you look up to the sky and know nothing, you see bright dots and assign your limited imagination to fill in the blanks. Then you learn, and look to the sky again. You see more than just the bright dots, you see something some complex and beautiful, something that no amount of words could fully describe, you see thousands off giants fusing more energy per second than you ever could in 100 lifetimes. You see something beyond anything your imagination could have ever come up with. Shit's beautiful yo.

[QUOTE=NorthernGate;28783509]If you look up to the sky and know nothing, you see bright dots and assign your limited imagination to fill in the blanks. Then you learn, and look to the sky again. You see more than just the bright dots, you see something some complex and beautiful, something that no amount of words could fully describe, you see thousands off giants fusing more energy per second than you ever could in 100 lifetimes. You see something beyond anything your imagination could have ever come up with. Shit's beautiful yo.[/QUOTE] [img]http://alangullette.com/lit/hpl/gent.jpg[/img] True dat' yall.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28783397] And my opinion is that it doesn't matter if art has a "meaning" or not. See Exit Through the Gift Shop.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the input, but it didn't really express your opinion of scientific influence in regard to art. I'm perfectly aware that both Dark Age and Modern Age pieces can be amazingly good or just a plain insult to art, but to what extent does science have anything to do with it (if any)?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28783397]dark age art: Modern Artwork [img_thumb]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ks9pc6ENJo1qa2mp8o1_500.jpg[/img_thumb] INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] And my opinion is that it doesn't matter if art has a "meaning" or not. See Exit Through the Gift Shop.[/QUOTE] I'dat Zdzislaw Beksinski?

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783535]Thanks for the input, but it didn't really express your opinion of scientific influence in regard to art. I'm perfectly aware that both Dark Age and Modern Age pieces can be amazingly good or just a plain insult to art, but to what extent does science have anything to do with it (if any)?[/QUOTE] the point being that any effect science has on art is negligible, as art is dependent on the artist so long as creative people exist, creativity will exist. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NorthernGate;28783538]I'dat Zdzislaw Beksinski?[/QUOTE] Is Black Dynamite blacker than the ace of spades?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28783578]the point being that any effect science has on art is negligible, as art is dependent on the artist so long as creative people exist, creativity will exist. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] Is Black Dynamite blacker than the ace of spades?[/QUOTE] You I like sir, you I like.

[QUOTE=NorthernGate;28783509]If you look up to the sky and know nothing, you see bright dots and assign your limited imagination to fill in the blanks. Then you learn, and look to the sky again. You see more than just the bright dots, you see something some complex and beautiful, something that no amount of words could fully describe, you see thousands off giants fusing more energy per second than you ever could in 100 lifetimes. You see something beyond anything your imagination could have ever come up with. Shit's beautiful yo.[/QUOTE] To put that into a work of art is something entirely different of course, but what you said sure did make a lot sense. Although I still feel like that only applies to the big picture; you definitely made me feel different about the way to portrait the beauty of the universe as a whole, but I still have doubts about the beauty of, for example, an individual star. Could you share how you feel about that?

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783056]Personally, I feel like science deadens a person's capability to imagine (putting aside all the good things science has brought us).[/QUOTE] I dunno bout you but I think the idea of a huge network of computers able to interact with each other is pretty creative.

if you blame science for a lack of creativity you're a shitty artist incidentally that's why I'm a shitty artist

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783623]To put that into a work of art is something entirely different of course, but what you said sure did make a lot sense. Although I still feel like that only applies to the big picture; you definitely made me feel different about the way to portrait the beauty of the universe as a whole, but I still have doubts about the beauty of, for example, an individual star. Could you share how you feel about that?[/QUOTE] A star is a cosmic reactor that smelts gold from gas and energy. They are larger than can even be conceived by the human mind, an alien object in both form and function. They burn for billions of years, devouring planets, obliterating and disintegrating anything they come into contact with. And then when their lives run short, they begin to feed on themselves, slowly growing denser and denser, until finally they are obliterated in a show of fire and radiation so strong it would be able to render a billion billion earths into nothing but dust and smoke. And in it's wake is left a sphere of non existance. A portal to oblivion itself. A point in space and time that brings time itself to it's knees. What beauty isn't there in a star?

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783623]To put that into a work of art is something entirely different of course, but what you said sure did make a lot sense. Although I still feel like that only applies to the big picture; you definitely made me feel different about the way to portrait the beauty of the universe as a whole, but I still have doubts about the beauty of, for example, an individual star. Could you share how you feel about that?[/QUOTE] When a writer describes the rolling hills, does he not express the waves of wind that pulsate across them? When an artist paints a crashing waterfall, does she not reveal the whiteness of the water at the foot of the fall? The truth is every artist incorporates science into their works, but our society is young and is just recently learning of space and astrophysics. As we come to an age where humanity easily encumbers the burned of space travel, writing about fusion of energy in dwarf stars will be as natural as describing grass blowing in the wind.

anyway, art adapts to the conditions the artist is in most of "ye olden days" art was a response to religious thinking of the time, as a natural result of the vagueries of that mode of thinking. however the actual range of ideas were fairly limited (think of how many "madonna and child" paintings there are for example) nowadays science has flipped traditional notions of what is banal and extraordinary upside down. it turned a deity, a bringer of life and light, into a sphere of burning gas with billions of hydrogen nuclei fusing every second, that could potentially end all technology on earth with a decent solar flare, and one of billions of billions in the universe. on the other hand, quantum theory shows that a vacuum is not actually empty, but a seething ocean of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs popping into existence then annihilating each other a nanosecond later. what I suppose I'm trying to say with this haphazard post is science gives you new stuff to work with, you just need to work harder for it to be effective

[QUOTE=NorthernGate;28783741]The truth is every artist incorporates science into their works, but our society is young and is just recently learning of space and astrophysics. As we come to an age where humanity easily encumbers the burned of space travel, writing about fusion of energy in dwarf stars will be as natural as describing grass blowing in the wind.[/QUOTE] So what do you think will happen when (if) we ever reach a point where we know everything and can explain everything there is (if there will ever be such a point at all)?

Of course not. Science is one of the things that allows us to create. Science is something that helps us make things we can visualize a reality.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783894]So what do you think will happen when (if) we ever reach a point where we know everything and can explain everything there is (if there will ever be such a point at all)?[/QUOTE] There will never be such a point; the human brain cannot physically hold that much data. Science will never catch up with what we do not know, and art stems from trying to bring unknowable concepts, into the realm of the knowable (another person cannot intuitively grasp what emotions you are feeling at any given time, so you create a piece of art as an analogue, for example. alternatively, religious art). Thus science will never defeat art, and vice versa.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783894]So what do you think will happen when (if) we ever reach a point where we know everything and can explain everything there is (if there will ever be such a point at all)?[/QUOTE] It won't, but so what if it does? I'm an art major from a family of science journalists and I really don't see how expanding my knowledge of the world would reduce my ability to imagine. If anything, it would expand it by giving me more to draw inspiration from, and more convincingly realize something fictional. I also don't feel comfortable with this notion that art needs to be divorced from reality. Fantasy escapism is fine, but isn't the best art that which gives us new insight into our lives? Mark Twain didn't get famous for inventing twenty species of space unicorns.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28783894]So what do you think will happen when (if) we ever reach a point where we know everything and can explain everything there is (if there will ever be such a point at all)?[/QUOTE] I myself don't believe in an absolute where we will know everything as a society, at least I won't be alive for it. But I also believe if we ever achieved such a grandiose state that we will have also had to achieve cultural maximosity. The average writer will render magnificent films through their words, and the average painter will compose epic tales through their canvas. At this point we will have reached completion and will have nothing left to contribute to the universe.

The difference between science and art is that science is a tool we use to do things, and art is just one of the things we do. As explained before, knowing more about how something works doesn't make it boring. It might make it boring to you, if all you care about is wonder in the unknown. But for people who like to know things, it's the exact opposite of boring. There's so much to know, so much to describe, and so much more that can be artistically rendered once you know how something works. Let's say you've never seen a car before, and suddenly one drives by. Your wild imagination runs through the various explanations as to why it can move under its own power, and you could create something rather unique and creative based on whatever ideas you have to explain the car's movement, but essentially, you know nothing about the object or how it works. However, with the knowledge of how it works, not only can you still create whatever you could have created before without that knowledge, you can also create stylized or idealized expressions of how it actually works, relating to people the intricate detail in the machinery itself. Creativity isn't about how little or how much you know about something, it's about how you can apply that knowledge.

[QUOTE=TH89;28784028]I also don't feel comfortable with this notion that art needs to be divorced from reality. Fantasy escapism is fine, but isn't the best art that which gives us new insight into our lives? Mark Twain didn't get famous for inventing twenty species of space unicorns.[/QUOTE] Well, having read Tolstoy's 'What is Art?', I don't believe that art should be divorced from reality, but I do believe that it should hold some meaning. I just appreciate art that much more when there's a personal reason I can relate to. Obviously one needs the materials of the real world to create a world within the canvas, but when that's the only thing in the painting, like in most still life pieces, I find myself having a hard time appreciating the piece when I can only say 'It's a nice landscape' or 'The artist has fine painting skills'. But I do feel myself understanding the band between art and science more already.

Holy shit no, knowing the truth about how the universe works is the best inspiration and knowledge for art there is

[QUOTE=Detlef;28784325]Holy shit no, knowing the truth about how the universe works is the best inspiration and knowledge for art there is[/QUOTE] But if we know the truth about everything then doesn't that there's nothing left for us to imagine?

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28784396]But if we know the truth about everything then doesn't that there's nothing left for us to imagine?[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "everything?" We know monsters don't exist and we can easily imagine one. The Truth: Monsters don't exist. Able to be imagined?: Yes.

No, but it does not really matter as Science and its advancement is incredibly important for us. Why without it we would not have ready access to furry pornography. Or loaded suicide revolvers.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28784396]But if we know the truth about everything then doesn't that there's nothing left for us to imagine?[/QUOTE] Everything we imagine is made up from reality.

When people didn't know about the sun we would draw it on the walls, praising it as a god. After we discovered how the sun and space works, some subgenres art are dreaming of spaceships that are as big as the galaxy and use captured suns to power them.