[Artemisia] arts and sciences

[Mike Bradley]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Reuben and Arwen <reuben_arwen at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> I know this subject has been beaten to death in some circles, but I think
> it's an important  open ended discussion.


It's late, I'm bored, and probably won't contribute anything really useful
to this, but I'm going to answer the questions anyway.

>
>
>  What is art?

The creative and subjective interpretation of the world around us, usually
in some form that can be percieved in some manner by others.

>
>  What is a science?

The objective interpretation of observable phenomena of natural laws,
codified in a manner that is explainable, understandable, able to have
experiments performed and (most importantly) repeatable and consitent.

>
>  Does art have to be beautiful?  Emotional?  Have good technique?  Be
> spiritual?


I sure hope not.  When I write, sing, embroider, attempt to draw, etc. it
all qualifies as art, not necessarily (even to my subjective point of view)
good art, but not all of it is all of those, or any of those things.

>
>  Does science have to be useful?

Have to be?  Science is useful, all knowlege has its uses.  The
/application/ of the science might not be useful, but the science itself
is.  For example, dropping a Mentos into Diet Coke will create a very nice
fountain of foam; not very useful.  But, why it happens, the chemical
reactions and other physical interactions taking place is useful. (The why
is long and irrelevant here, but anyone interested, I suggest finding the
Mythbusters episode in which it is explained.  The boys do a lot of work to
figure out *exactly* what is going on.)

>
>  Does complexity of a piece always add to it's merit?

Yes ... no ... that's part of the subjectivity.  Some people like complex,
some like simple.

>
>  What if the historically accurate way is more simple, ugly, or doesn't
> meet modern aesthetics?

Well, if you are trying to make an accurate historic recreation, then it
should be done in the historic fashion.

>
>  Can things be both an art and a science?

No.  Art can influence or even prompt scientific discovery, and scientific
principles can be used to create art, but the subjective/objective dichotomy
prevents one thing from being both.  Hmm. Example...example...example...oh!
Creating mead is a science, there are codified repeatable steps for doing
it.  Anyone with the proper tools, time, and ability to follow directions
can make mead.  Now as anyone who has ever had mead from Wulfe H'dey can
attest, the end result can be an art.  But it's still a scientific process
(well, I don't think Wulfe just throws a bunch of stuff in at random...).
On the flip side is the golden ratio, it was used in art (by virtue of being
found in nature) before ever being fully codified.

>
>  Do quality materials automatically make something better?

Again, subjectivity.  I would say appropriate materials make something
better, but that's just my subjective view.

>
>  Who is more important, the artist or the viewer?

In the early stage, the artist.  Guess why. :)  After the art is created,
even the artist is the viewer; so the viewer is more important.

>
>  Can something be art to one person, but not another?

No, but something can be worthwhile art to one person and crap that my taxes
are supporting and paying for to another.

>
>  Is there a difference between fine art, crafts, and sciences?

Yes ... well between fine art and crafts vs. sciences.

>
>  Can art be judged or only the technique of an art?

Both, and both are subjective.

>
>  Is emotional content and aesthetics in art more important than
> documentation or execution?

I'm going with yes.  But only because (a) I never document anything and (b)
my execution isn't always that great.

>
>  Does science have to be proved correct to have value?

Yes.  Because in science provable = repeatable and observable.  Nothing in
science is really 'provable', things are at best 'not disproved'; we can't
even prove gravity, but the consistency in which its effects are repeatable
and observable is fairly solid.  As opposed to say the 'science' of cold
fusion.

>
>  How creative can an Arts and Sciences project be before it is OOP in
> scope?

Mu.

>
>  Is everything we research in the SCA automatically a science because it
> is "social science" and history based?

"Social sciences" aren't.  Not to offend anyone in any of the social science
disciplines, but utilization of deductive reasoning and the scientific
method does not make something a science.  There's a reason that degrees in
the social sciences are generally B.A. degrees and not B.S. degrees.

>
>  Is there a difference between what we think about these issues today and
> what our personas would have thought?

Probably.  The 12th C. Scot in me probably wouldn't care much about either.
The 16th C. courtier would have cared about both insomuch as they enriched
his life.

> What makes you think so?

Either version of my persona had more important things to deal with?  And
their fathers weren't nuclear engineers, and their wives artists.  Well, ok,
their wives were my ... oh, nevermind.  They had better things to do.

>
>
>  I can hear the crickets already...  Esther
>
Count the number of chirps.  Then you can tell the temperature outside.

Conchobhar