Does science destroy (meaningful) creative thinking? - General

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28784396]But if we know the truth about everything then doesn't that there's nothing left for us to imagine?[/QUOTE] That means we have everything to imagine giving us [U]TRULY[/U] endless possibilities for imagination. You could put everything you know into one solid shape. Now how would that look like? Like nothing you'd ever seen, known or thought before. If you know everything you have an endless oppurtunity to imagine how those things would look like if they were more like something else. The more you know, the more you have to imagine. [QUOTE=bambouchacka;28785582]True, but if someone discovered that monsters are real, we wouldn't need to imagine them anymore because we'd have an actual image of them.[/QUOTE] Creativity is not based on what you NEED to know or imagine. It's about what you do imagine. How do you think we came up with zombies? People die. People rot. People are buried. Hmmm... If people die... What would they look like if they were to come to life again? And wouldn't that mean they would all come up from the grave? Tadaa! Zombie hand reaches out from a grave as it climbs out to eat brains. Likewise, if we found monsters to be real that wouldn't stop us from imagining them to look different. Also notice how you basically use science to find out peoples (possible) creative thought process. If you can discover how creativity comes forth with science and you as well come up with scientific discoveries through creativity (by being curios, experimenting, mixing, have fun with things and see how they react) I see no reason why it would STOP creativity instead of ENHANCING it. Also to note is that most scientists are either lunatics or well-humored people (although their humor might heavily rely on scientific knowledge so to the common man they can be quite lame) something a creative-blocking career would never be able to cause. [QUOTE=gregvizz;28797391]That's because you don't know what these things do, I mean you know the purpose and the chips' name but if you knew exactly how it worked its beauty would be lost, OP is in some areas correct.[/QUOTE] That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. What does any great artist, scientist or whatever-person-that-is-great-and-obssessed-by-something share? They share fascination and passion for what they do. They want to know every little detail about what they like/do, how it works, how to do it and how to perfectionise it. They know so much about it that Average Joe would puke from all that boring information. But to them, it's pure beauty. True art.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28801174]I sure wouldn't rule out the possibility. Generally, I wouldn't say science does not bring new phenomena to work about; it does, but we're more limited in our own freedom to form our own idea of it, because scientist already declare how it works. (if that made sense) A good example of this would be the science-fiction genre it brought us. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] Neglecting the 'indifferent person' here; do you mean that scientist are becoming artists in their own way?[/QUOTE] Beyond becoming. Have you ever wondered why most Canadian Bachelors of Sciences for any school require at least two art classes (Seminar, History, usually)? Scientists were never cold and nonemotional. The "Cold, Non-emotional" thing is an entirely American stereotype, which is not surprising when you consider the fact that the United States Government lacks scientists and engineers in it's offices and the United States has only one celebrity scientist who isn't very popular among most of America (Neil Tyson). I am wondering if one couldn't exist without the other. I don't think Science could be expressed without art, nor art could be expressed without science. In fact, the humanism movement is what spun off the beginning of a new era of scientific studies. It was an intellectual movement in the Renaissance expressed and spread through the art. Without the change in art, there would not have been an intellectual separation from the church. Without the separation from the church, it would be a bigger organization now than it was then. It'd be a worldwide intellectual crackdown and a de-evolution. You'll also find that scientists, when they are not indifferent and close-minded, are more emotional and very humanist. It is true that machismo is considered silly and immature by the scientific community. Leonardo Da Vinci was not just a scientist. He was not just an artist. He was both in every manner. The shade that society puts on scientists is why people's picture of them is generally wrong. Out of all the conferences I have been to, professors I have talked to and even scientists I have met, only two out of countless numbers were socially awkward. And they were socially awkward because of disabilities. One had a speech impediment and the other was autistic. I do not think there is a gap in intelligence or logical ability between artists and scientists at all. In fact, the behavior of the both of them, especially together, makes me think they behave the same way. The scientist uses their experience in the physical sciences combined with their high logic skills and creativity to come up with new ideas, solve new problems and boldly go where no math has gone before. The artist uses their experience in the physical manipulation combined with their high logic skills and creativity to come up with new ideas, solve new problems and boldly go where no song has gone before. Now that I think about it, I don't think that what they do with their experience is very different at all. Saying that the artist does not improve upon old art was silly of me. Both the scientist and the artist use what they know about previous creations and use their creativity to make new ones and improve upon them. A modern artist does not start with cave drawings. No. They start with everything the other artists have already done and create new things with a new style. A modern scientist does not start with "Why am I on the ground?". No. They start with everything the other scientists have already done and create new things with a new style. The only difference is their title, their background knowledge and the equipment they work with. They're one and the same.

[QUOTE=dgg;28802504] That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. What does any great artist, scientist or whatever-person-that-is-great-and-obssessed-by-something share? They share fascination and passion for what they do. They want to know every little detail about what they like/do, how it works, how to do it and how to perfectionise it. They know so much about it that Average Joe would puke from all that boring information. But to them, it's pure beauty. True art.[/QUOTE] So you say that people who work with this stuff are passionate about it? Where does that actually sticks to the "creative" thinking? You got lost in your own thoughts kiddo, that means that you don't really want to contribute to the discussion, you just want to prove that you are smarter. Humiliating.

[QUOTE=some troll;28802939]So you say that people who work with this stuff are passionate about it? Where does that actually sticks to the "creative" thinking? You got lost in your own thoughts kiddo, that means that you don't really want to contribute to the discussion, you just want to prove that you are smarter. Humiliating.[/QUOTE] So you call him "Kiddo" and assume that he doesn't want to contribute to the discussion and just wants to prove himself smarter? He posted what was clearly opinion. If there's a kiddo here, it's the guy who runs around attacking other members for no good reason. I don't know whether or not you intended it to be offensive (Probably not), but I'm just pointing out that your message does not help any of your points in this discussion. From my point of view, at least, it has just made me loose some respect for you.

paraphrasing the "Beauty is Truth" thing: Art is reality. Reality is art. Ergo, in my opinion, science creates, not destroys creative thinking. Plus what most people consider 'art' is only one tiny part of the huge spectrum that is creative thinking, because you automatically associate the word with the abstract, expressions of self, paintings, sculptures et. al... But if Turing hadn't imagined the Turing machine, and if Ada Lovelace hadn't created on top of Charles Babbage's ideas, we wouldn't have the machines we use so commonly today. My degree in Artificial Intelligence & Robotics would be worthless without being creative (artistic; passionate about their ideas) before me. And AI is an interesting field which can incorporate art, philosophy, as well as simply science; there's a lot more to science than just empirical thinking. What we don't know, or what we theorize, is just as important and exciting as what we know. I'm not creative nor artistic in the normal sense of the words, but I could write you some pretty unique code. Art and science are intertwined. If I teach a robot how to express emotion, and then teach it how to paint that, would that be science destroying art? :keke:

[QUOTE=gregvizz;28802939]So you say that people who work with this stuff are passionate about it? Where does that actually sticks to the "creative" thinking? You got lost in your own thoughts kiddo, that means that you don't really want to contribute to the discussion, you just want to prove that you are smarter. Humiliating.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? You were the one that slightly derailed. My post was a DIRECT argument to your post. You're the one that supposedly don't want to contribute to the discussion and only want to prove that you're smarter. Also it has a lot to do with creativity because creativity comes from passion. Without passion you won't have the willpower nor take the time to do creative works and as such you won't get in a creative mood either allowing you to do creative things and think creatively. You were also saying how the beauty of a mechanical chip would be lost once you knew how it worked and how it was made which was as already proven untrue. The reason it doesn't lose it's beauty even when you know how it works is because you are attracted by it's looks and work put into it. It's mechanic drive. And that admiration of it's beauty can turn into passion for it and obsession causing you to want more about it and be able to make it as well as improve and strengthen it's beauty. It's all about in what way you are attracted to it. Something can be attractive because it's a mystery which is what you were referring to. But something is beautiful because you know exactly how it works as well, because you know the sheer amount of work that is put into it, big or small, advanced or simple, it doesn't matter. All you're doing is doing personal attacks and spreading pessimism because you have no arguments.

[QUOTE=dgg;28803506]What are you talking about? You were the one that slightly derailed. My post was a DIRECT argument to your post. You're the one that supposedly don't want to contribute to the discussion and only want to prove that you're smarter. Also it has a lot to do with creativity because creativity comes from passion. Without passion you won't have the willpower nor take the time to do creative works and as such you won't get in a creative mood either allowing you to do creative things and think creatively. All you're doing is doing personal attacks and spreading pessimism because you have no arguments.[/QUOTE] While I think that is correct, psychology says it will only make him worse. It would be best that the both of you forgive and forget. It's easy to think someone is your enemy when they oppose you, but they don't have to be. Note: Not directed at either of you. I just don't want this thread to turn into a flame war.

Lovecraft, science and argumentation all in the same thread. I was forced in here against my will by the very content of the thread. No, science doesn't diminish your capacity to imagine at all. I feel it's stimulated mine. Science at the high school level and so on is boring and is taught in such a way that everything is to be taken on faith but every time I see a derivation for something I've taken for granted or read about the thought experiments or physical experiments that lead to a major shift in our scientific thinking I leave class or put down whatever book I'm reading with my head buzzing with thoughts.

[QUOTE=Leopardson;28803540]While I think that is correct, psychology says it will only make him worse. It would be best that the both of you forgive and forget. It's easy to think someone is your enemy when they oppose you, but they don't have to be. Note: Not directed at either of you. I just don't want this thread to turn into a flame war.[/QUOTE] I don't think of anyone as my enemy. I think of everyone as debatants.

Alright then. Hopefully gregvizz simply had a jolt or something and he feels the same way.

Also: [QUOTE=bambouchacka;28801691]I haven't seen many awe-inspiring paintings in which chips or something alike were featured. (although given time, I'm sure someone will make those)[/QUOTE] Paintings of technology is still "art" and has nothing to do with science's influence, although it's pretty uninspiring art :v: Here's some inspiring art of science: [url=http://singularityhub.com/2009/10/09/music-created-by-learning-computer-getting-better/]Music created by Learning Computer - getting better[/url] [url=http://www.princeton.edu/~artofsci/gallery2010/one.php%3Fid=1266.html][img]http://www.princeton.edu/~artofsci/gallery2010/1266-500.jpg[/img][img]http://www.princeton.edu/artofscience/gallery2009/1050-500.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.artscatalyst.org/]"The Arts Catalyst commissions contemporary art that experimentally and critically engages with science. We produce provocative, playful, risk-taking artists' projects to spark dynamic conversations about our changing world."[/url] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjkBwZtxp4[/media] ^ improve its playing, combine with the computer that improves its composing over time, BAM. autonomous creativity. fueled by the passion of the roboticists behind it all.

By the way, what defines "meaningful" creative thinking? It has to be subjective. You can't universally define what constitutes meaningfulness.

Surely scientific knowledge can give you more subject matter. To use northern gate's night sky analogy, if you look up at the stars and just see bright dots on the sky, you might paint something about how they make pretty patterns. Once you know they are huge, unthinkably hot and also billions of miles away, you could make a picture that expresses how big the universe is.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28803792]By the way, what defines "meaningful" creative thinking? It has to be subjective. You can't universally define what constitutes meaningfulness.[/QUOTE] You can't fully define it but set a certain standard which serves little purpose since it won't be a full standard since it'll be like a swiss cheese with extra holes. But to me meaningful art is art that has a set meaning put behind it. Something it wants to convey. An emotion, a thought, a reaction, etc. However since it's meaning has to be understood by oneself to think that it has a meaning you hit the wall right there. Otherwise the artist would need to state it for you which makes it all very dumb.

[QUOTE=Leopardson;28803633]Alright then. Hopefully gregvizz simply had a jolt or something and he feels the same way.[/QUOTE] Of course I do I [img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/heart.png[/img] you guys.

da heck, I made a whole gallery of scientific journal cover images. [url]http://fadingz.deviantart.com/gallery/25612945[/url] They are no doubt inspired by science.

My work here is done.

[QUOTE=Maya2008;28805179]da heck, I made a whole gallery of scientific journal cover images. [url]http://fadingz.deviantart.com/gallery/25612945[/url] They are no doubt inspired by science.[/QUOTE] But I do need knowledge about the subject to find it meaningful, because only then I'll comprehend what it stands for. (Good) 'primitive' art requires absolutely no knowledge of anything for a person to be able to relate to it and arouse emotions. Scientifically-inspired art requires knowledge of that specific field to find meaning behind it, whereas I can see a man staring into the sea and I could come up with a thousand reasons as to why the man would be standing there. There is definitely beautiful, stunningly amazing scientific art, but to me, your cover images are 'just' nice to look at, because I have no idea what they represent. Then again I could give my own meaning to it, but I'm sure you'd object against that because it's not the message you're trying to convey. Only a scientist with expertise in the field would understand what they're really about. Or am I looking at this from a wrong angle? [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Leopardson;28806208]My work here is done.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the time and effort you've put into this. Feel free to contribute more though. ;) [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28803792]By the way, what defines "meaningful" creative thinking? It has to be subjective. You can't universally define what constitutes meaningfulness.[/QUOTE] I'd say something has meaning when someone can look at the artwork and can somehow relate to it.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28806231]I'd say something has meaning when someone can look at the artwork and can somehow relate to it.[/QUOTE] Someone can do that for any artwork. Therefore all artwork is meaningful.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28806231]But I do need knowledge about the subject to find it meaningful, because only then I'll comprehend what it stands for. (Good) 'primitive' art requires absolutely no knowledge of anything for a person to be able to relate to it and arouse emotions. Scientifically-inspired art requires knowledge of that specific field to find meaning behind it, whereas I can see a man staring into the sea and I could come up with a thousand reasons as to why the man would be standing there. There is definitely beautiful, stunningly amazing scientific art, but to me, your cover images are 'just' nice to look at, because I have no idea what they represent. Then again I could give my own meaning to it, but I'm sure you'd object against that because it's not the message you're trying to convey. Only a scientist with expertise in the field would understand what they're really about. Or am I looking at this from a wrong angle?[/QUOTE] Well your question was if science destroys meaningful creativity which it doesn't as you said yourself right here. It strengthens creativity but certain works coming out of it will require knowledge in that field. However science contributes with lots of creations that you need no knowledge about in order to create a meaningful art piece with. Heck, the meaning behind the artwork can even be as simple as confusion, or pointing out the complexity of the creations.

[QUOTE=dgg;28806303]Well your question was if science destroys meaningful creativity which it doesn't as you said yourself right here. It strengthens creativity but certain works coming out of it will require knowledge in that field.[/QUOTE] I suppose that's where the subjective part comes in. A quick glimpse on TehDoomCat's second picture (Love-Hate Relationship) made me want to know a meaning behind it; what the artist wanted to express. I'll have to admit that I was disappointed that the explanation for it was purely technical; nothing related to the heart-shaped figure or the widely known meaning behind the symbol of the heart. Only the goals he was trying to achieve and how he achieved it. To put it like this (albeit pretty dumbed down): A painting of a circle. Could represent infinity, perfection, ... Then the artist's explanation behind it: 'Actually I was trying to paint a square, but the shape of the canvas and the angle from which I painted caused it to become a circle.' (Again, this is very dumbed down, probably doing it more injustice than I should. And perhaps I'm not looking hard enough for a meaning behind it, but if the artist doesn't have an actual meaning, but instead a goal, I don't think it makes for very good, inspiring art.) Though I can imagine a scientist would find the way the creator achieved this very exciting, I don't think there's any real 'artistic' value behind it, despite the fine result. [editline]25th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28806275]Someone can do that for any artwork. Therefore all artwork is meaningful.[/QUOTE] I should've put it differently. I know anyone can draw an apple and anyone looking at the drawing can say: 'That's an apple. It's a fruit. I like apples. This is meaningful art.' Instead what I meant was that good artwork draws someone into it and creates an emotional bond between the artwork and the viewer. And unless you know how for example a chip works and understand the whole complexity behind it, I don't think your average Joe, despite being very open to art, can feel that some connection as he could when seeing a painting of a magnificent, overwhelming scene.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28806657]To put it like this (albeit pretty dumbed down): A painting of a circle. Could represent infinity, perfection, ... Then the artist's explanation behind it: 'Actually I was trying to paint a square, but the shape of the canvas and the angle from which I painted caused it to become a circle.' (Again, this is very dumbed down, probably doing it more injustice than I should. And perhaps I'm not looking hard enough for a meaning behind it, but if the artist doesn't have an actual meaning, but instead a goal, I don't think it makes for very good, inspiring art.) Though I can imagine a scientist would find the way the creator achieved this very exciting, I don't think there's any real 'artistic' value behind it, despite the fine result.[/QUOTE] So you would be ok with it if someone drew a circle to represent infinity? But you would find it meaningless if someone drew a circle just to draw a circle? It's the exact same thing and nothing is going to change that, and that's also why you're not supposed to hear the artists meaning behind the work if you're trying to interpret the artwork. They could both lead to the same conclusion and thus are just as much of a art piece. I think anyone (especially artists) would be very fucking interested in knowing how someone that were supposed to draw a square ended up drawing a circle when they have nothing in common at all. Technique is technique and a scientist appriciates the exact same art as any other person out there and looks for the same thing. Technology is technology art is art. The prior examples with "knowing everything behind it" were used on real-life objects like trains, weather cycle, mikro-chips, bicycles, light bulbs, etc etc. It was not meant to be converted to enjoying the technique behind a piece of artwork. [QUOTE=bambouchacka;28806657]I should've put it differently. I know anyone can draw an apple and anyone looking at the drawing can say: 'That's an apple. It's a fruit. I like apples. This is meaningful art.' Instead what I meant was that good artwork draws someone into it and creates an emotional bond between the artwork and the viewer. And unless you know how for example a chip works and understand the whole complexity behind it, I don't think your average Joe, despite being very open to art, can feel that some connection as he could when seeing a painting of a magnificent, overwhelming scene.[/QUOTE] I disagree, average Joe knows very well that chip is something electrical. He has seen enough adverts and images in papers to know as much. With that simple connection he can stuff in all sorts of connections to the chip and what it can do and what it is and will without problem be able to achieve an emotional bond with a piece of artwork that has the main focus on chips. Artwork with electrical things like chips, wires, bulbs, engines, whatever, never focuses on the FUNCTION of those things. That's blueprints. They take the basic function of those things (the functions you can understand even as a child) and makes something out of it. For example doing a Terminator-like being or making emotional robots with bits of bolts, screws and wires hanging out, some burnt and smashed. The complexity of a brick or technical data of it CAN'T create art alone. Only it's function, behaviour and what we connect it with can. For example; it is very popular to stuff guns with all sorts of useless crap in order to make it LOOK hi-tech, whilst any person that knows their gadgets can see that half of the stuff attached to it IS COMPLETELY USELESS. But to average Joe it just gives an impression of hi-tech advanced stuff. Or what about the old 80's where any sci-fi with respect for itself had BOOP BEEP BLOOP sounds going on everywhere and lots of light-bulbs flashing in bright saturated colours? They served no real purpose, but damn did it look futuristic and hi-tech. Art plays on those connections, what it does or what we think it does. Not what it actually does or how many transistors it contains.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28785582]True, but if someone discovered that monsters are real, we wouldn't need to imagine them anymore because we'd have an actual image of them. [/QUOTE] What did we fear when all we had was a cave and some rocks? Wild animals. What did we fear when we were kids? Monsters from scary stories and so on? What do we fear now? Aliens. Ghosts. My point is that there will always be something else, something beyond what we know. We can never truly know everything except when there is nothing in the entire universe.

[QUOTE=Mikkelmann;28808260]What did we fear when all we had was a cave and some rocks? Wild animals. What did we fear when we were kids? Monsters from scary stories and so on? What do we fear now? Aliens. Ghosts. My point is that there will always be something else, something beyond what we know. We can never truly know everything except when there is nothing in the entire universe.[/QUOTE] Have to agree with you there. We're finite beings in an infinite world. Despite all of the stresses of daily life, science reminds me of how tiny I am, which is comforting and beautiful. It's nice to know that my current checking account balance isn't going to be a big deal a thousand years from now.

[QUOTE=bambouchacka;28806657]I suppose that's where the subjective part comes in. A quick glimpse on TehDoomCat's second picture (Love-Hate Relationship) made me want to know a meaning behind it; what the artist wanted to express. I'll have to admit that I was disappointed that the explanation for it was purely technical; nothing related to the heart-shaped figure or the widely known meaning behind the symbol of the heart. Only the goals he was trying to achieve and how he achieved it.[/QUOTE] The creator of artwork doesn't have to be the one to apply meaning to it. I chose that image because it was the symbol of a heart at a molecular scale, which I thought was amazing. You CREATE meaning from natural spectacle. You could come to your own conclusion like "Love runs deep" from looking at that image. Art isn't ALL expression of self, a lot of the time it's getting OTHER PEOPLE to think and come to their own conclusions - peer review! Which is integral to science, too!

If anything science has created new forms of art, you should watch the Shock of the New episode on futurism. I honestly don't think you can really do anything to hurt art as a collective, I mean other than stopping someones freedom of expression, anything you do only creates more and more inspiration and sometimes a whole new art culture.

If anything the fear of getting something wrong hinders creativity, imagine you want to draw in a strange fashion, but you decide not to because the teacher might not like it, or give you good grades.

[QUOTE=dude2193;28812818]If anything the fear of getting something wrong hinders creativity, imagine you want to draw in a strange fashion, but you decide not to because the teacher might not like it, or give you good grades.[/QUOTE] Right. I said something similar meaning the same thing earlier, saying that people who want to win usually are not creative. Not wanting to lose gets the same effect.

[QUOTE=dude2193;28812818]If anything the fear of getting something wrong hinders creativity, imagine you want to draw in a strange fashion, but you decide not to because the teacher might not like it, or give you good grades.[/QUOTE] in that sense, perfection in science and technology will provide the ability to do more finite and 'perfect' work.

To sum up my entire thoughts, I will post an image from XKCD: [img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beauty.png[/img]