4 ms·

Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its

Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect. Scientific or technological progress on the other hand is iterative. More advanced theories are slowly formulated on the backs of older ones. For precision tools for example you need to start off building crude tools with nothing, then use those to build the infrastructure that will allow you to build slightly more precise tools and so on.

padraic7a 9y ago
"Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect." That's a very strange idea. If all existing novels dissappeared do you think we would produce novels straight away? If all painting dissappeared would we paint with perspective, or in abstract, or just go for rough cave type paintings? How long would it take us to come up with rhyming metre, or the observational essay, cinema or stand-up? You think we'd start from having no references and create this immediately?
- everyone 9y ago
  Maybe rhyming metre would never be recreated. In some cultures it wasnt. The phase space for what will entertain humans is seemingly almost infinitely detailed, there is no wrong or right way to do it. Eg. people can dance to banging rocks together just as effectively as to Mozart. On the other hand, there is only one Pythagoras' theorem, and an infinitude of similar incorrect theorems. We postulate that intelligent aliens should discover Pythagoras' theorem but not Jazz or De Stijl.
Santosh83 9y ago
They're not the same I agree. Which is why saying art is trivial and by implication disposable as compared to science is not IMO a healthy way to look at it. They are two sides of the same coin the way I see it. Through both we ultimately seek to understand reality inside and outside ourselves. I mean think about... why do we look at the stars? Why do we want to visit other planets? Why do we want to understand molecules and atoms? It's not all for the mere utility of being able to control materials and forces and therefore make our lives physically comfortable, though it's obviously a very important side effect. The core reason is we want to understand the meaning & beauty underlying reality, and art tries to do the same in a different way. So the way I see it, loss of STEM knowledge will set us back materially, while loss of all art and philosophy will set us back equally grievously in another sense.

padraic7a 9y ago

"Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect." That's a very strange idea. If all existing novels dissappeared do you think we would produce novels straight away? If all painting dissappeared would we paint with perspective, or in abstract, or just go for rough cave type paintings? How long would it take us to come up with rhyming metre, or the observational essay, cinema or stand-up? You think we'd start from having no references and create this immediately?

everyone 9y ago
Maybe rhyming metre would never be recreated. In some cultures it wasnt. The phase space for what will entertain humans is seemingly almost infinitely detailed, there is no wrong or right way to do it. Eg. people can dance to banging rocks together just as effectively as to Mozart. On the other hand, there is only one Pythagoras' theorem, and an infinitude of similar incorrect theorems. We postulate that intelligent aliens should discover Pythagoras' theorem but not Jazz or De Stijl.

Santosh83 9y ago

They're not the same I agree. Which is why saying art is trivial and by implication disposable as compared to science is not IMO a healthy way to look at it. They are two sides of the same coin the way I see it. Through both we ultimately seek to understand reality inside and outside ourselves. I mean think about... why do we look at the stars? Why do we want to visit other planets? Why do we want to understand molecules and atoms? It's not all for the mere utility of being able to control materials and forces and therefore make our lives physically comfortable, though it's obviously a very important side effect. The core reason is we want to understand the meaning & beauty underlying reality, and art tries to do the same in a different way. So the way I see it, loss of STEM knowledge will set us back materially, while loss of all art and philosophy will set us back equally grievously in another sense.