When Worlds Collide....Science and Art To Become Unified!
jonathan
We all recognize the powerful and rapid force of technology
and the impact is has on our world. What if art and beauty
were given that same pervasiveness and rate of change?
If art and science were to simply merge both would be
diminished, but there is a different approach that
will succeed.
The two seemingly incongruous camps of science
and art can instead move to a third middle ground.
Where both could retain their innate qualities yet
combine forces.
Where could we find this missing link?
What world has the qualities of science, technology and
art? What realm produces optimum efficiency and
creativity, while also producing beauty and wonder?
The only place where both camps could move, to combine
forces without abandoning their core, is
....Nature.
The crucial discovery needed to allow the two
camps to join without compromise is in
the ability to model Nature...abstractly.
It is the abstract nature of any model that allows its
application elsewhere.
The hurdle has already been cleared. An abstract
mathematics of evolution is an established
science now. A math that is, for the first time, consistent
with both itself and Natural/Living systems.
It is now possible for Beauty and Wonder to overwhelm
and pervade the world with the same pace and
force of.technology.
Our future, and that of our entire world, is destined to
Swim in Beauty.
You couldn't stop this inevitable future if you tried, we
have passed the point of no return. However, we can
speed its arrival, we can among the first to embrace this
future, lifting ourselves up while helping to usher in
Utopia.
Why wait for the inevitable?
This Future is within our grasp!
Jonathan
"PERCEPTION of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."
By Emily Dickinson
An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/complexity/complexity.html
Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics
Princeton University
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
The Complexity & Artificial Life Research Concept
for Self-Organizing Systems
http://www.calresco.org/
INVESTIGATIONS
THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Investigations.html
s
Usenet Flyer Marshall
..can I be the Flower Girl?
I'll dress up in this pudgy little girl suit I have.
I'll be perfect.
look for wings
Marshall at Plane...@SkyMouth.Com wrote on 1/18/04 12:53 PM:
> ..can I be the Flower Girl?
No.
But you can be the ring boy.
I'M the flower girl!
:)
--
"Is there anything in the world sadder
than a train standing in the rain?" -Pablo Neruda
John Jones
One is use, the other invocational.
Can there be a merging of use and invocation?
Don't artists already employ technique (science)?
JJ
jonathan <ye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:K6ydnYer5-T...@giganews.com...
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> in article OKzOb.58082$6%2.3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com, Usenet Flyer
> Marshall at Plane...@SkyMouth.Com wrote on 1/18/04 12:53 PM:
>
>
> > ..can I be the Flower Girl?
>
> No.
>
> But you can be the ring boy.
We got ying boy already good so.
>
> I'M the flower girl!
>
> :)
>
> --
>
> "Is there anything in the world sadder
> than a train standing in the rain?" -Pablo Neruda
>
> http://futurebird.diaryland.com
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
/Ite, ipse ficara/.
http://scrawlmark.org
Usenet Flyer Marshall
> We got ying boy already good so.
Damn.. all that ying noise is gone now.
Yinglessness is bliss.
Andrew Werby
"John Jones" <jivers...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:buf915$fuc$2...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> The merging of science and art?
> One is use, the other invocational.
["Pure" science isn't to be confused with applied science, or technology. As
it is an inquiry without the requirement of immediate utility, it has a
certain similarity with contemporary art, which is also essentially an
inquisition of the physical world; albeit in a different spirit.]
> Can there be a merging of use and invocation?
[Is this really the best question to ask?]
> Don't artists already employ technique (science)?
>
> JJ
[As do we all. But I think the original post was looking for a deeper
connection, where the insights of science could influence our ideas of
beauty, and aesthetic concerns might inform our quest for truth. To me, it
sounds long overdue.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Ad Absurdum
>
knee-jerk dismissal) has its own rich lineage of serious investigation
and theorization and artistic translation........ it's strange to have
been hardly investigated at all by "philosophers"..........
Aidan Tynan
Ad Absurdum wrote in message ...
Myth and Language, by Ernst Cassirer.
-Aidan
Tony Thomas
and science progressively. He does not mention art in this progression but
this is subsumed in both magical and religious activity in the service of
both.
Science id different to the extent that it does not require the service of
the arts beyond technical crafts. In earlier times, for example, the art of
the smith (metalworker) combined the highest knowledge of science (ie
metallurgy and the technical processes of working metal) and the most
refined processes of artistic creation. In other crafts, such as pottery,
the same thing can be said.
In the 19th century, William Morris and his circle decried the divorce
between the craftsman and the technologist/scientist that had taken place
since the Renaissance, where such figures as Leonardo had to be
philosophers, scientist and artists not to mention architects and poets.
A call for the fusion of art and science is therefore somewhat
anachronistic. This debate was renewed by C P Snow in his lecture The Two
Cultures. That the distance between the two cultures has widened since the
1960s is a function of the exponential growth in science and technology in
comparison with perhaps linear growth in the arts at best. This Malthusian
divide would appear to threaten the existence of the fine arts altogether.
What has really happened is a fusion between technology and entertainment
which has marginalised the fine arts. Mult-million dollar film productions,
like 'Lord of the Rings' fuse art with leading edge computer technology in
aid of money making and the conspicuous displays of wealth that the public
enjoy. This is not so very different from the spectacular displays that
Leonardo had to put on to please his patrons. Similar remarks can be made
about Michaelangelo's contribution to the Sistine Chapel and other major
public works sponsred by church and state.
Tony Thomas
"Ad Absurdum" <haec...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:d65e36c.04012...@posting.google.com...
Aidan Tynan
Tony Thomas wrote in message <40171...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>In The Golden Bough, Fraser explains that humans developed magic, religion
>and science progressively. He does not mention art in this progression but
>this is subsumed in both magical and religious activity in the service of
>both.
Art is the secularisation of magic, I think. I'm actually writing a thesis
on it at the moment, in terms of myth and modernist literature using
Cassirer's book.
>
>Science id different to the extent that it does not require the service of
>the arts beyond technical crafts. In earlier times, for example, the art of
>the smith (metalworker) combined the highest knowledge of science (ie
>metallurgy and the technical processes of working metal) and the most
>refined processes of artistic creation. In other crafts, such as pottery,
>the same thing can be said.
>
>In the 19th century, William Morris and his circle decried the divorce
>between the craftsman and the technologist/scientist that had taken place
>since the Renaissance, where such figures as Leonardo had to be
>philosophers, scientist and artists not to mention architects and poets.
>
>A call for the fusion of art and science is therefore somewhat
>anachronistic. This debate was renewed by C P Snow in his lecture The Two
>Cultures. That the distance between the two cultures has widened since the
>1960s is a function of the exponential growth in science and technology in
>comparison with perhaps linear growth in the arts at best.
I'd say aesthetic modernism found itself at an impasse after the second
world war, killed off by the rise of pop culture and the integration of
abstract expressionism with business (which could have been a CIA plot). All
major developments in the novelistic form may have ceased with the
publication of Ulysses. I suppose with the radical system of disciplinary
differentiation that came with modernity the humanist ideal of merging the
arts and sciences can only seem regressive in a utopian kind of way.
-Aidan
Tony Thomas
"Aidan Tynan" <ayt...@REMOVEeircom.net> wrote in message
news:kYERb.491$rb.5...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> Tony Thomas wrote in message <40171...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >In The Golden Bough, Fraser explains that humans developed magic,
religion
> >and science progressively. He does not mention art in this progression
but
> >this is subsumed in both magical and religious activity in the service of
> >both.
>
> Art is the secularisation of magic, I think. I'm actually writing a thesis
> on it at the moment, in terms of myth and modernist literature using
> Cassirer's book.
This proposition is an interesting one but depends upon how the occult
survives and transforms in a particular historical context.The Renaissance
was an age of reason to the extent that Classical/Arabic thought was making
inroads into Christianity. This latter religion must be regarded as occult
in
some of its doctrines. Look at Botticellis work; which divides into the
religious and secular. Michaelangelo is different in that he is humanistic
rather than purely religious, Leonardo has strong mystical and occult
tendencies. Raphael's work seems 'rational', and therefore more superficial
by comparison. Others, like Cellini and later Caravaggio were driven by
sensuality rather than just intellect. Each artists reflects a personal
(Jungian) character in his work.
Many artists from different eras have been influenced by the occult or the
mystical. Paul Klee and Max Ernst are examples in more recent times.
Renoir, Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso are materialistic by comparison. Dali,
that
great commercialist, was deeply influenced by religion and the occult.
These examples run counter your thesis and suggest that, for some artists,
the occult is a strong influence in comparison with the more sexual drive
that underpins the work of Picasso and expressionists such as Max
Beckman.
In other words, artists are influenced by many things other than pure
aesthetics and technical formalism. The absence of subject in abstract
expressionism left room for mysticism in the works of Rothko or even
Pollock. Francis Bacon is another case where there is a striving for
otherworliness in the context of submerged sexual expression. Even the
'realist' volumes of Stanley Spencer hide a yearning for the religious and
mystical.
In Buddhism, an old religion, we find a fine fusion of the magical, mystical
and the religious. The mandala expresses this fusion well. In the Orthodox
Church we find a
similar fusion in the form of iconography.
My conclusion is that some artists rely upon the occult for inspiration to a
greater or lesser degree
and that this tendency is often independent of the social context.
The overwhelming of American art by commercialism is not unprecedented.
The sponsorship of art by the Church and the aristocracy in the Rennaissance
was
a necessary stimulus to the craft guilds and the promotion of individual
genius.
This recognises the social component of individual artistic endeavour.
My own experience of the sixties was that pop culture was disruptive, but
perhaps no more so than, say. impressionism was disruptive of academism.
Warhol could be seen as fighting commercialism by embracing it, the reverse
of the strategy of the art market had applied to the American avant guard.
This reverse exploitation led to an equilibrium of sorts which could only be
transcended by the excesses of anarchic extremism. This in turn led to the
dissolution of painting into more general forms of expression, such as
installations and the proposition that there is no hard and fast distinction
between art and everyday experience, a tendency introduced by the
surrealists who had previously stretched the boundaries between art and the
mundane.
Literary tendencies associated with Woolf, Pound, Eliot and Joyce (so called
modernism) were somewhat belated and less radical than movements in the
visual arts. Literature lies at the boundary of art and science because of
its common use of language. Despite the aforementioned writers, meaning is
usually accessible to readers but much less in the case of
non-representational art. The kind of thoughts a painter has in relation to
such works are, essentially, imaginative, but in a rather different way from
the more restricted imagination used by writers and scientists.
In abstract impressionism, for example, the painter seeks to express an
underlying reality which is both of the mind and of the world. This could be
described as being in harmony with nature at a level beyond the senses. The
same might be said of certain kinds of mathematicians or scientists who seek
for a general synthesis. The 'automatism' of Klee and Pollock is an attempt
to access this hidden world, bringing the body and mind into harmony with
hidden forces. This ant-intellectual approach (often by very intellectual
artists) is contrary to the work of science and mathematics.
This distinctive 'magical' modus operandi is what separates art from
science, one which retains the magical roots from man's first creative
springs.
Tony Thomas