4 ms·
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, it is a valid and important point. Researchers discover empirical structure. They don’t create it. It isn’t art. The a
by svnt 2y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, it is a valid and important point. Researchers discover empirical structure. They don’t create it. It isn’t art.
The article seems to want to bring rights holders together in a way that isn’t valid.
A scientific paper is normative. Its construction is closer to a pull request than artwork.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSeems like an unnecessary nitpick, which is discouraged in HN. you can argue the opposite way and say artists "discover empirical structure" that resonates with a lot of people. But colloquially we call it an "art style", often named after the "discoverer".
- svnt 2y agoInteresting inverted/remapped take. The form is what is under copyright, and the form of the paper is normative, while I would argue the form of the art, if normative, makes it illustration and not art. If I change the hypothesis and data of a paper I change the entire meaning and consequence of the paper, although the style remains constant. If I change the palette and subject of a painting, the style remains the same and it would not be considered anything more than trivially novel. If style is art, then there is no art in scientific papers.