Re: [-empyre-] old discussion, new discussion
The Voices in my Head tell me that on 1/4/04 7:31 PM, Kanarinka at
kanarinka@ikatun.com wrote:
> As a phenomenon, the
> artistic visualization of data isn't anywhere near where the scientific
> visualization of data is simply because (I believe) artists are confused
> as to whether they are artists or scientists and end up in neither
> realm, representing visually compelling but arbitrary relationships.
Since science and art are different activities performed by very different
kinds of people, tall with different purposes and drives, it will provide
very different material results. Oddly, I was recently asked about a topic
similar to this recently, and a very short and somewhat humourous essay will
be appearing because of it. Unfortunately, due to NDA, I can't tell you what
I wrote, but I suggest you check http://www.edge.org right around January
12th.
Basically, at their most optimal functioning, Science examines and explains
"How" and Art provides a vision of "Why". There's a subtle but important
difference between how and why, and what people do to answer those questions
makes all the difference between those differences.
Why "How"?
Art about Science.
How "Why"?
Neuroscience.
The art of "How"?
Occam's Razor?
The science of "Why"?
Language?
Art points a direction, Science provides the transportation to get you
there.
Heed art, use science.
Perhaps our present history is shaped/distorted/transformed by neoplatonic
imagination in an aristotelean universe?
More later.
HW
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.