Art and its relation to science is not something that I ever realized was that divided. I knew that different strides in the manufacturing field made strides in artistic field possible, but I didn’t realize that one was assumed to be the laborious side and one the creative side at one point in time. Science, as I have been taught, is an investigation of the universe and all that it holds. Art does the exact same thing, but goes a step further to not only examine and question, but to ponder into alternative. The divide between scientist and artist is that where one eventually assumes something as fact, the other continues to question. Artists formulate possible connections between philosophy and science. Art is also a union of all the sciences; social and behavioral, natural, formal and applied sciences. This divide between the two also baffled me because they are two fields of study that I consider to be the most forward thinking. They are also two of the quickest advancing, those and music, have the highest turnover rate for new thought and new idea.
The irony of this divide illustrated in the first chapter is further illuminated in the second chapter with the scientific reasoning of why we are capable of perceiving a visual world. Honestly though, after I found out the answer to the question why colors exists to our eyes, my first thoughts were of their importance in the world especially if different living things have different perceptions of these colors. The answer to this is usually one of survival in someway. Bright colors are attention grabbing, and humans have more color perception than any other species thus making us more capable of identifying danger or nutrition. The next thoughts I had were if our eyes have developed over millions of years, in the next million years will eyes continue to evolve allow a truly new color, meaning allowing a visual experience with in the infrared frequencies or ultraviolet frequencies.
No comments:
Post a Comment