4 ms·

> as if a painter or a musician is going to see something different from a regular astronaut A scientist, after years of training, can look at a physical syste

> as if a painter or a musician is going to see something different from a regular astronaut A scientist, after years of training, can look at a physical system, break it down into its component parts, figure out how to model each part using mathematics, synthesize the models, and then do experiments to confirm the overall model. An artist, after years of training, can look at a scene from twenty different perspectives, understand the emotional impact of each perspective on different types of human personalities, can select a few that most appeal to them, and then synthesizes these selected perspectives into one whole coherent art piece. If you are not an expert at something, then don't reduce what they can see and do, to only what you can see and do, and declare that they are doing nothing interesting.

lawlessone 8y ago
Don't reduce artists and scientists to their professions? Scientists can be artistic and artists can be scientific. They overlap.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  I like to say I write executable poetry.
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago
  Sorry, when I said "scientist" and "artists", I didn't mean professionally, just someone who has spent a lot of time honing their skills in these fields. One person (say Lenardo di Vinci) can be both.
chris_mc 8y ago
>If you are not an expert at something, then don't reduce what they can see and do, to only what you can see and do, and declare that they are doing nothing interesting. Perfect, this is what I was thinking for years but couldn't put into (very good) words. If you don't understand something, don't presume to understand it via "common sense".
godelski 8y ago
Feynman on beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
isoskeles 8y ago
I think you're assuming a lot more intent from my comment than there was. I don't think scientists are better than artists or vice versa. I don't think any two people experience life in the same exact way. I didn't say artists "do nothing interesting." However, an artist and a scientist are going to see literally the exact same thing when they pass by the moon (barring any medical conditions, e.g. Van Gogh). That's what I meant in saying they will see the same thing. And I want to point out two observations about your definition of what an artist can do. First, your definition is limiting. It is overly specific. You can agree that not every artist looks at a scene from N perspectives to synthesize all possible emotional impacts, etc. especially not in some conscious, trained way. And if it's unconscious, people capable of such a talent aren't the only people qualified to be artists. Second, the definition itself sounds like it was written by a scientist or mathematician, a bunch of little checkboxes describing process and behavior. Maybe you were just doing that to try to get through to me. If so, I appreciate it. However, I assume this is just how you think. And I believe that this insistence on how important and significant it is to have an artist look at the moon from up close is one heavily rooted in and biased toward empiricism / scientific-mindedness / whatever you want to call it. ("If only I could get a little closer to the moon, to measure it etc., I could properly gauge the emotional impact etc. etc. etc.") Artists are able to write or paint (or do something in another medium) about experiences they have never had, still with significant impact. Dostoyevsky didn't have to murder anyone to write Crime and Punishment. It's not a prerequisite to see or touch something to be able to conceive of its emotional impact. The same goes for this. It may be the case that an artist gets closer to the moon and is inspired (similar to the idea of a muse), but it's not a foregone conclusion.
- mike10010100 8y ago
  > However, an artist and a scientist are going to see literally the exact same thing when they pass by the moon But only the artist will be able to paint it into a beautiful work that can be a cultural icon for centuries. > It's not a prerequisite to see or touch something to be able to conceive of its emotional impact. No, but it absolutely helps.

lawlessone 8y ago

Don't reduce artists and scientists to their professions? Scientists can be artistic and artists can be scientific. They overlap.

rbanffy 8y ago
I like to say I write executable poetry.
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
Sorry, when I said "scientist" and "artists", I didn't mean professionally, just someone who has spent a lot of time honing their skills in these fields. One person (say Lenardo di Vinci) can be both.

chris_mc 8y ago

>If you are not an expert at something, then don't reduce what they can see and do, to only what you can see and do, and declare that they are doing nothing interesting. Perfect, this is what I was thinking for years but couldn't put into (very good) words. If you don't understand something, don't presume to understand it via "common sense".

godelski 8y ago

Feynman on beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

isoskeles 8y ago

I think you're assuming a lot more intent from my comment than there was. I don't think scientists are better than artists or vice versa. I don't think any two people experience life in the same exact way. I didn't say artists "do nothing interesting." However, an artist and a scientist are going to see literally the exact same thing when they pass by the moon (barring any medical conditions, e.g. Van Gogh). That's what I meant in saying they will see the same thing. And I want to point out two observations about your definition of what an artist can do. First, your definition is limiting. It is overly specific. You can agree that not every artist looks at a scene from N perspectives to synthesize all possible emotional impacts, etc. especially not in some conscious, trained way. And if it's unconscious, people capable of such a talent aren't the only people qualified to be artists. Second, the definition itself sounds like it was written by a scientist or mathematician, a bunch of little checkboxes describing process and behavior. Maybe you were just doing that to try to get through to me. If so, I appreciate it. However, I assume this is just how you think. And I believe that this insistence on how important and significant it is to have an artist look at the moon from up close is one heavily rooted in and biased toward empiricism / scientific-mindedness / whatever you want to call it. ("If only I could get a little closer to the moon, to measure it etc., I could properly gauge the emotional impact etc. etc. etc.") Artists are able to write or paint (or do something in another medium) about experiences they have never had, still with significant impact. Dostoyevsky didn't have to murder anyone to write Crime and Punishment. It's not a prerequisite to see or touch something to be able to conceive of its emotional impact. The same goes for this. It may be the case that an artist gets closer to the moon and is inspired (similar to the idea of a muse), but it's not a foregone conclusion.

mike10010100 8y ago
> However, an artist and a scientist are going to see literally the exact same thing when they pass by the moon But only the artist will be able to paint it into a beautiful work that can be a cultural icon for centuries. > It's not a prerequisite to see or touch something to be able to conceive of its emotional impact. No, but it absolutely helps.