[Artemisia] Arts and Sciences (Conchobhar)

[Reuben and Arwen]

  I think this complex & lengthy post calls for in text responses.   I hope this is appropriate.  I'll post my responses in bold and hope it comes across that way.  Esther
   
  Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:08:00 -0700
From: "Mike Bradley" 
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] arts and sciences
To: "Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list"

> What is art?

The creative and subjective interpretation of the world around us, usually
in some form that can be perceived in some manner by others.
   
  Esther:  Are these your words?  Just curious.  I like "creative and subjective interpretation" coupled together.  I'd add "concepts in the world around us".  Trying to interpret the whole shebang of the "world around us" would be a serious complexity issue!
>
> 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 consistent.
  
 
  Esther:  That sounds good to me, although I'm no scientist.
>
> 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.
  
 
  Esther:  I agree.  To become an artist you have to be willing to be a bad one at first.  Give yourself permission to be a beginning artist.  I wonder if this was a viewpoint held in period?
  >
> Does science have to be useful?

Have to be? Science is useful, all knowledge 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.)
   
  Esther:  Interesting.  I'll give this more thought.

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  In SCA judging criteria complex gets more points.  Just an observation.

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  Agreed

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  I think this is one of the most hotly debated issues.  I think arts *must* have an element of science but science is independent of art.  Sciences can be elevated to arts by emotional content.  i.e. a suit of armor is a scientific accomplishment, what body parts needs to be covered, metallurgy, correct execution, etc. but when embellished with unnessary design elements it is elevated to art.    

>
> Do quality materials automatically make something better?

Again, subjectivity. I would say appropriate materials make something
better, but that's just my subjective view.
   
  Esther:  Better does not equal correct.  Appropriate for our SCA scope meaning historical materials in use?  Highly decorated pickle barrel armor could easily be in a modern art museum, but never fly in the SCA with any degree of seriousness.

>
> 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.
  
 
  Esther:  I need to give this some thought.
>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  Can you clarify this?  If it's considered artistic enough to spend money on, doesn't that mean it's at least art to the person making that financial decision?  Mundane example: I thought the pile of Brillo Boxes by Andy Warhol I saw at the BMA isn't art, but other people do, and would pay millions for it.  I wonder if there are period examples of this kind of thing.  Renn. people kept a lot of art in curio cabinets.  I wonder if other people came through, checked it out and said, "wow, what a pile of cr at p!."

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

Yes ... well between fine art and crafts vs. sciences.
   
  Esther:  Can you give us your opinion?

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

Both, and both are subjective.
   
  Esther:  Ooooh!  But isn't technique a science?

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  Never beat yourself up over execution.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  :)  Why don't you document?  Even if you don't intend to submit, it still helps to make notes for yourself.  Just curious.  

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  Lots of incorrect scientific conclusions were drawn in period.  I think the period definition of science must have been very different from the modern one.  Does anyone have something like this tucked away somewhere?   Most of the time scientists don't have to conform to religious views anymore.

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

Mu.
   
  Esther:  Moo.

>
> 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.
   
  Esther:  This is over my head.

>
> 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
   
  Esther:  Have they done that one on Mythbusters?  :)


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.