What is art?

[mrzz]

It's impossible to have a break through that would negate the basic laws such as e.g. mass preservation. White art is "freer", i.e. any given artist can transcend common conventions, and human imagination is unbound.

hmmm... we are starting to disagree here, even if I surely concede that, 'on average' things are pretty much like that. And it seems that, at face value, it is "easier" for an artist to break all the rules and, as you say, transcend common conventions.

But I ask a few questions. The first is: but do they? Most musicians keep composing songs within the established styles they are comfortable with, most painters follow the conventions they learned, most writers stick to their styles also, and so on... at most they mix up one thing here and there but generally nothing really new comes up. So, yes, I still agree that it seems easier for an artist to defy conventions, but I really do not think it happens that often. The XXth century is one where artists were proud of doing such a thing, but frankly, quite quickly "defying conventions" became the new convention, and also, if you look deep, much less new ground was really break, so I really think that, in the end, most artists keep doing "normal art" most of the time.

The second is: is really impossible to have a break trough that would negate basic laws? I agree -- naturally -- that you must keep what you already have, and preserve the basic laws in the contexts they are expected to be true. But I will be a true "pain in the arse" and say that even your example has been already broken, after all we have E = mc^2 and all fission/fusion nuclear reactions do not preserve mass, but total energy instead (yes, there are finer details to that, but you got my point).

So, I do agree that artists, and art, is "freer", but it is surely -- how can I say that -- well, this is true, but with a lot of interesting and non-obvious "truths" within it.

 

[Horsa]

I'm very sorry for my penultimate response to you guys. It was inconsiderate of me. I was feeling inferior I guess. Thinking about it properly I'll give you another response, a proper 1 this time.

Thank you very much for your information, @mrzz. I didn't realise the routine day-to-day role of a scientist was so mundane because when I think of science I think of animals & plants, how they're classified, how they evolved & how they live & work, I think of the periodic table, how chemicals react with each other, how metals react with chemicals & water, how natural landmarks were & are formed, how climate works & is formed, laws of motion, space, forces, etc. When I think of scientist & inventors I think of Galen, Vesalius, Harvey, Avicenna, Rhazes, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin (who I couldn't forget as I was born on his Birthday), John Logie Baird, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Alexander Fleming, Louis Pasteur, Edward Jenner, Thomas Edison, Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell, Frieze-Green, Stephenson, Barnes-Wallace, Marie Curie, Joseph Priestley, Joseph Lister, Thomas Telford, Charles Babbage, Louis Braille, Stephen Hawking, Hegel, Freud, Jung, Kant, Lorenz & Cherenkhov (since I read a thread on basic relativity on the science forum I'm on. It was fascinating).

 

[Horsa]

Very good thread, @Horsa , and a very clever post, @Chris Koziarz .

The deeper and broader the concept we discuss, the harder it is to define it. It would be (somewhat) easy to define what is, say, early American Impressionism, as it is a category within a category within a category. But is a bit harder to define what Impressionism is, again harder to define what painting is (what it is, not how it is done), even harder to define what visual arts are, and finally art in its most general aspect.

It is interesting to note that the same can be said about science. It is easy to define what is, say, low energy applied nuclear physics. A bit harder to define nuclear physics, quite hard to define what is physics, and almost impossible to define what is science.

In the second half of the XXth century a very representative current within science philosophy adopted a very pragmatic approach: Science is what scientists do (it is not that simple, but it is almost like that). So we can borrow that notion and say that art is what artists do. Who decides who is an artist, then? The viewer, of course. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess at a basic level science can be separated out into biology which is the science of life, chemistry dealing with chemical elements & physics can be seen as the science of everything & it can be seen as knowledge for which lots of experiments have been done & substantial evidence has been found to prove theories which have been created to explain different things & also the invention & discoveries of all different things. E.g. Avicenna was the 1st person to discover circulation & Charles Babbage invented the computer.

 

[Horsa]

@Chris Koziarz , your post pointed me to a lot of directions, and I which I could explore them all. On one hand, your observation, as you well noted, is quite pragmatic. Since one does not have all the time in the world, there is a limit for the "total area" of his knowledge. If he covers more fields, he cannot go as deep in each and everyone of them. This makes a lot of sense, naturally.

Your conclusion, if I understood it correctly, applies this same "total area" constrain not to human knowledge, but to knowledge itself. It has an interesting parallel with an idea/concept that Niels Bohr explored. He borrowed (his own) complementarity principle from physics and applied it to science in general. He said something along the lines (can't remember the proper reference know) that one is either absolutely precise or either absolutely (I am lacking a word here) "meaningful". In other words, if one makes a statement that is intended to have a deep and broad meaning, he will be forced to use a sentence which does not defines its own boundaries of validity either/or to use terms which are not precisely defined. The more precise you are, the less general is the statement you made.

It also reminded me a very beautiful passage from Alan Moore's "Watchmen". One of the characters is an ornithologist, and there is an ornithology essay of this character within the story. In this essay the author asks if by studying the birds in so much detail, the scientists simply loose perspective of the animals themselves. I can't help but think that this is a very beautiful way to illustrate your conclusion.

However, my initial observation was much more pedestrian. It explored basically one thing: that if you are within the boundaries of an "area", you can use that area vocabulary to define everything. The deeper you are, the larger the vocabulary, the easier it gets. It is like a father-son dialogue, when the child asks "what is that?" and the father answers: "This is so and so". "But what is so and so?", the child replies... this goes on and on, and at some point the father is speechless. I guess we are kind of in the father's shoes when we need to answer what is art (or science...).

I think the reason why I abuse the privilege of asking questions now is that from a very young age I never got answered when I asked questions at home. My parents said they didn't know & a day later or few days later they came back with a book & told me the answer will be in there read that. Most of the time the books they bought me were antique so when I tried looking at the contents page & flicking to the right page they said don't do that, read the whole book we don't want you to damage the book. 1 of the 1st things I learnt was how to look after books. The thing was some of these books were for people way older than me but that didn't put me off, I had a go anyway, pegging away there until I understood & found the right answer. In fact I learnt more at home through books than I did at school. That's also why I'm quite brave & try to talk about things I don't know anything or much about sometimes & ask questions about things I don't know anything or much about. Luckily for me, I can normally come up with a decent answer to a question I don't know anything or much about.

 

[mrzz]

I didn't realise the routine day-to-day role of a scientist was so mundane

When you put it this way I almost feel bad... but it has some truth in it. It is laborious, it can be tiresome, it demands focus, patience, willingness to learn new things, both small and big, and, most importantly, the ability to accept your own mistakes and move on. So, yes, in that sense it is quite "mundane".

And mind the fact that this applies to everyone. From an obscure, mediocre guy working at some corner of the world in a non fashionable field with nothing groundbreaking in sight, to absolutely all names that you aptly cited. All of them needed long hours studying, all of them tried very hard at a lot of things. All of them spent much more time getting things wrong than getting the bloody right things they became famous for. For sure, it is a wonderful thing to do, to think of all those big, deep questions that science pose us. But to answer them properly you need to answer a lot of smaller questions first, and if you do not see the merit in them, you probably have zero chance of doing the next step.

 

[Horsa]

When you put it this way I almost feel bad... but it has some truth in it. It is laborious, it can be tiresome, it demands focus, patience, willingness to learn new things, both small and big, and, most importantly, the ability to accept your own mistakes and move on. So, yes, in that sense it is quite "mundane".

And mind the fact that this applies to everyone. From an obscure, mediocre guy working at some corner of the world in a non fashionable field with nothing groundbreaking in sight, to absolutely all names that you aptly cited. All of them needed long hours studying, all of them tried very hard at a lot of things. All of them spent much more time getting things wrong than getting the bloody right things they became famous for. For sure, it is a wonderful thing to do, to think of all those big, deep questions that science pose us. But to answer them properly you need to answer a lot of smaller questions first, and if you do not see the merit in them, you probably have zero chance of doing the next step.

Don't feel bad. I realised that my 1st response to your comment just showed how I felt at the time & wasn't good so decided that you deserved a proper answer & an explanation so I just told you what I think of when I think of science & which scientists & inventors names jump out of me though I forgot to mention Mendeleev. (Please excuse me if I spelt the last name wrong. It's a hard name to spell.) I realise that it must be hard work but when you know you've done something good that changes people's lives for the better it must make everything worthwhile for you & give you a sense of achievement. (Hold it! Why are you telling me this? I respect you guys & the scientists I mentioned & realised how hard you & they must work. I just couldn't do your jobs. I'd be incapable of doing it for a start. I guess I could learn something from some of those characteristics you mentioned though. I'm better at multi-tasking than concentrating on 1 job at a time most of the time but I guess I could try being more mindful. Patience isn't a virtue I have a lot of & I could accept, learn from, move on from & forget my mistakes much quicker.) All jobs are monotonous to a certain extent.

I can imagine. It must have been harder for George Stevenson because he was a normal worker before he came up with his steam engine (after Richard Trevithick who I've just remembered) which revolutionised how people worked & travelled because it was used in factory machinery as well as trains. (They're often thought of as the person who invented the steam engine but I'm sure I read somewhere that Hero the Greek 1st invented the steam engine but nothing was done with it.) Avicenna was a Dr. as well as coming up with the true theory of circulation when the Dark Ages of medicine was taking place in Europe. He found a lot out about how our body works. I think he was amazing. I know William Harvey was given the credit for this but he just rediscovered this in the medical Renaissance period. I'm specifying medicine here because there were Dark Ages in many areas & Renaissance periods in many areas too. Renaissance just means rebirth. I get you. Like everything else, you need to start at the bottom & work up.

 

[Horsa]

When you put it this way I almost feel bad... but it has some truth in it. It is laborious, it can be tiresome, it demands focus, patience, willingness to learn new things, both small and big, and, most importantly, the ability to accept your own mistakes and move on. So, yes, in that sense it is quite "mundane".

And mind the fact that this applies to everyone. From an obscure, mediocre guy working at some corner of the world in a non fashionable field with nothing groundbreaking in sight, to absolutely all names that you aptly cited. All of them needed long hours studying, all of them tried very hard at a lot of things. All of them spent much more time getting things wrong than getting the bloody right things they became famous for. For sure, it is a wonderful thing to do, to think of all those big, deep questions that science pose us. But to answer them properly you need to answer a lot of smaller questions first, and if you do not see the merit in them, you probably have zero chance of doing the next step.

Did you realise you'd doubled your comment? Don't worry! It happens to me sometimes.

 

[mrzz]

Did you realise you'd doubled your comment?

Thanks for the warning, just deleted it.

 

[Horsa]

Thanks for the warning, just deleted it.

You're welcome. When I got another notification after the 1st taking me to the same reply I thought "what's going on here?" then realised & thought I'd let you know. Thank you very much for the deletion.

 

[Horsa]

I wish someone could come up with some way of making spectacles that don't steam up when you need to wear them all the time & you bake & cook or you're drinking tea or coffee or come in a warm room out of the cold & spot in the rain. They've got anti-glare lenses & anti-scratch lenses now.

I actually thought of shutter systems that automatically close when armed robbers come near shops 10 years before they were actually made but because I didn't have the mechanical ability could do nothing about it.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I wish someone could come up with some way of making spectacles that don't steam up when you need to wear them all the time & you bake & cook or you're drinking tea or coffee or come in a warm room out of the cold & spot in the rain. They've got anti-glare lenses & anti-scratch lenses now.

I actually thought of shutter systems that automatically close when armed robbers come near shops 10 years before they were actually made but because I didn't have the mechanical ability could do nothing about it.

Whoa! I had the same problem while living in Europe/USA in wintertime but never thought to actually do something about it. Now I don't have this problem in my dry winters so no incentives here. You don't need to have "the mechanical ability" if you look around and find someone around you who has and can collaborate with you. First thing you may consider is talking to your optometrist, if you haven't already. Or if you have and they did not respond in anyway (e.g. that "rain repelling lenses" already exist somewhere or the trial existed or it's worth trying something like automotive "Rain-x") then find another guy.
On the other hand, google is your friend and will help you to find a prior-art to your idea (if one exist). Rain-x I cited above is the closest from the top of my head, but I didn't google anything. As I said I would firstly seek an optometrist's advice if Rain-x product is applicable to glasses. Did you know about Rain-x existence? Rain-x might not pass the healthcare quality standards because, say it decreases visibility at night. Naturally their selling outlet won't tell you a downside of the product they sell.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I was going to try out 1 of your methods of inserting images @mrzz but I found this page with both my favourite picture & a video & found it fascinating. Enjoy!
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/george-stubbs-whistlejacket

I really enjoyed how this guy had made me more familiar with this piece of art. Thanks!
First shocking impression was, that whistlejacket painting is live size! So it was lots of work to crate such big painting. Then, how Stubbs had to learn horse anatomy in order to crate such bountiful proportionate image. In that time, he could not paint from a photo as anyone could do today. Then the painting techniques and fact that seemingly casual brush-strokes from close-up, compose into the perfect image from afar. I am a bit less ignorant now and it boosted my appreciation.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I guess at a basic level science can be separated out into biology which is the science of life, chemistry dealing with chemical elements & physics can be seen as the science of everything & it can be seen as knowledge for which lots of experiments have been done & substantial evidence has been found to prove theories which have been created to explain different things & also the invention & discoveries of all different things. E.g. Avicenna was the 1st person to discover circulation & Charles Babbage invented the computer.

I'd also distinguish abstract sciences like mathematics family, and computer science and maybe theoretical physics. They, in their pure form, have to representations in the natural world. and only human inventors (starting from Babbage) created apparatuses that implement said abstracts. So, in that sense, Alan Turing was a "pure" computer scientist while John von Neumann was the implementer. BTW, thanks for bringing in Charles Babbage here. I remember learning about him at uni in passing but forgotten since. He was an incredible guy well above his contemporaries, in both theory and practice. Only recently Babbage machines have been built to the technical specs of his times and proven to be working apparatuses. Somehow his peers did not want to build the machines. In today's parlance, there was no market for Babbage inventions.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

hmmm... we are starting to disagree here, even if I surely concede that, 'on average' things are pretty much like that. And it seems that, at face value, it is "easier" for an artist to break all the rules and, as you say, transcend common conventions.

But I ask a few questions. The first is: but do they? Most musicians keep composing songs within the established styles they are comfortable with, most painters follow the conventions they learned, most writers stick to their styles also, and so on... at most they mix up one thing here and there but generally nothing really new comes up. So, yes, I still agree that it seems easier for an artist to defy conventions, but I really do not think it happens that often. The XXth century is one where artists were proud of doing such a thing, but frankly, quite quickly "defying conventions" became the new convention, and also, if you look deep, much less new ground was really break, so I really think that, in the end, most artists keep doing "normal art" most of the time.

The second is: is really impossible to have a break trough that would negate basic laws? I agree -- naturally -- that you must keep what you already have, and preserve the basic laws in the contexts they are expected to be true. But I will be a true "pain in the arse" and say that even your example has been already broken, after all we have E = mc^2 and all fission/fusion nuclear reactions do not preserve mass, but total energy instead (yes, there are finer details to that, but you got my point).

So, I do agree that artists, and art, is "freer", but it is surely -- how can I say that -- well, this is true, but with a lot of interesting and non-obvious "truths" within it.

I'd say we do not disagree yet, but do not understand each other because we just pay attention to different minute aspects. Maybe we have better understanding, if I precise what I mean by "It's impossible to have a break through that would negate the basic laws". All physical laws are only true up to certain uncertainty level, i.e. how well we can measure them. Mass preservation law is true in a world where there is no radioactivity and no nuclear reactions, because they were not understood when mass preservation was formulated. Then came the understanding of nuclear reaction and E = mc^2 you quote. I would not say this example broken mass preservation law but extended it to the situations previously unknown. Mass preservation is still valid in most situations (incl. teachings at schools) and will be valid forever. There will always be uncertainty at the frontier of any physical science and the uncertainty of our measures of this world (I acknowledge Heisenberg Principle here) but every new, more accurate theory will extend the old existing one rather than negating it, in a sense of overturning it. An example of such science negation, as physically impossible wishful thinking is present climate science denial. Special interest groups who deny the basic laws of physics climate science is base upon, are constantly talking about "uncertainties" and that a "scientific breakthrough" will come that will negate the current conclusions of said science. Nothing more wrong. Any "breakthrough" will only "fine tune" our understanding of earth climate system but do not overturn the science based on 200y of evidence and logical conclusions (since Joseph Fourier) and the scientific foundations as solid as mass preservation in the form I brought above. Of course to be very precise, there is still tiny uncertainty of everything and always be (thanks to Heisenberg) but when said uncertainty is just less than 5%, statisticians start talking about "settled science", i.e. no one expect any overturning breakthrough in the future. Things like mass preservation (within uncertainly at the forefront as clarified above) are so unlikely to be overturned, that there is no point talking about it.
I claim revolutions in art don't have such constrains. It it possible to completely overturn the conventional rules. Example: pentatonic scale in music or even atonic music. These examples simply negated the classic chromatic scale and dodecaphonic music. This example shows the art be not bound by the existing laws/conventions as much as the science is.
In case you don't know what pentatonic music is, watch this video where Bobby McFerrin aptly explains pentatonic scale to the audience. Great guy, the best "art communicator" in music!

 

[Horsa]

Whoa! I had the same problem while living in Europe/USA in wintertime but never thought to actually do something about it. Now I don't have this problem in my dry winters so no incentives here. You don't need to have "the mechanical ability" if you look around and find someone around you who has and can collaborate with you. First thing you may consider is talking to your optometrist, if you haven't already. Or if you have and they did not respond in anyway (e.g. that "rain repelling lenses" already exist somewhere or the trial existed or it's worth trying something like automotive "Rain-x") then find another guy.
On the other hand, google is your friend and will help you to find a prior-art to your idea (if one exist). Rain-x I cited above is the closest from the top of my head, but I didn't google anything. As I said I would firstly seek an optometrist's advice if Rain-x product is applicable to glasses. Did you know about Rain-x existence? Rain-x might not pass the healthcare quality standards because, say it decreases visibility at night. Naturally their selling outlet won't tell you a downside of the product they sell.

I didn't know that. I know I've got a dreamy & imaginative side so just thought that because I didn't have mechanical ability there would be no chance of it ever happening though I know how advanced things get so just wondered why aren't steam-proof & rain-resistant spectacles available in a technologically advanced society like we live in today. I've thought about it for decades now. I never heard of that because we still just have normal spectacles or spectacles with anti-glare or anti-scratch lenses available to us at my opticians.

 

[Horsa]

I really enjoyed how this guy had made me more familiar with this piece of art. Thanks!
First shocking impression was, that whistlejacket painting is live size! So it was lots of work to crate such big painting. Then, how Stubbs had to learn horse anatomy in order to crate such bountiful proportionate image. In that time, he could not paint from a photo as anyone could do today. Then the painting techniques and fact that seemingly casual brush-strokes from close-up, compose into the perfect image from afar. I am a bit less ignorant now and it boosted my appreciation.

I'm glad you enjoyed. He could have painted the horse from life in a field but he liked to be anatomically correct. I didn't realise until I joined in Equine Art hour on twitter that he also wrote a book on equine anatomy. It will be worth a fortune now. It's o.k. I think everyone knows I'm equine-mad. You wasn't ignorant. Everyone just likes different art.

 

[Horsa]

I'd also distinguish abstract sciences like mathematics family, and computer science and maybe theoretical physics. They, in their pure form, have to representations in the natural world. and only human inventors (starting from Babbage) created apparatuses that implement said abstracts. So, in that sense, Alan Turing was a "pure" computer scientist while John von Neumann was the implementer. BTW, thanks for bringing in Charles Babbage here. I remember learning about him at uni in passing but forgotten since. He was an incredible guy well above his contemporaries, in both theory and practice. Only recently Babbage machines have been built to the technical specs of his times and proven to be working apparatuses. Somehow his peers did not want to build the machines. In today's parlance, there was no market for Babbage inventions.

Thank you very much for your additions. Like @mrzz said defining science is very hard although everyone knows what it is to a certain extent & certain aspects of it. You're welcome. I learnt about Charles Babbage the last Maths class at the end of term in High school once when our Maths teacher decided to give us a break from practical Mathematics & we learnt Mathematical history which I enjoyed. We learnt about Pythagoras, Copernicus, Einstein, Archimedes, Galileo, Euclid & Charles Babbage & their contributions to the world of Maths & Science.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I didn't know that. I know I've got a dreamy & imaginative side so just thought that because I didn't have mechanical ability there would be no chance of it ever happening though I know how advanced things get so just wondered why aren't steam-proof & rain-resistant spectacles available in a technologically advanced society like we live in today. I've thought about it for decades now. I never heard of that because we still just have normal spectacles or spectacles with anti-glare or anti-scratch lenses available to us at my opticians.

Let me insert a clarification here, because funnily, we appear to use slightly different terms for the optical professionals we're talking about.
I goggled emphasised word of yours and found that my word "optometrist" would mean your word "dispensing optician" (the one who fits glasses on you). I also have a word "ophthalmologist" that would mean your word "ophthalmic optician" (the one who prescribes glasses). I think only the former should be interested to talk to you about your idea, the latter might be uninterested, and further he is also un-qualified, IMO.

 

[Horsa]

Let me insert a clarification here, because funnily, we appear to use slightly different terms for the optical professionals we're talking about.
I goggled emphasised word of yours and found that my word "optometrist" would mean your word "dispensing optician" (the one who fits glasses on you). I also have a word "ophthalmologist" that would mean your word "ophthalmic optician" (the one who prescribes glasses). I think only the former should be interested to talk to you about your idea, the latter might be uninterested, and further he is also un-qualified, IMO.

You're right about the different words for opticians, however average people where I live just call all these people opticians even eye specialists at the hospital. I was also telling you the reason why I didn't realise rain-proof spectacles were available (the opticians in our area simply don't give people the option). Thank you very much for the information. I didn't think I had the ability to do something about my idea as I didn't have the mechanical skills so just joked about it with friends & family (fellow spectacle-wearers) who thought it was a good idea & it was a shame no-one came up with the idea & did something about it. They were also amazed that in a technologically advanced world like we live in today steam & rain-proof spectacles didn't exist as we have anti-glare & anti-scratch lenses. I also thought of my idea as just being dreamy & imaginative.

A lot of people in the past have had brilliant ideas which may have just seemed dreamy & imaginative though but for whatever reason they haven't been able to do something about their idea. Since this is an art thread I'm going to give the example of Leonardo Da Vinci here. Leonardo Da Vinci is best known for his paintings but some of his sketches were found proving that he came up with the idea of a flying machine way before the Wright Brother's did. His idea would not have worked though as it was inspired by his observation of birds & bats & based on the idea of strapping wings to people & having people flap their wings & fly & no-one would have had enough strength in their arms to be able to fly. (He really was ahead of his time.)
https://www.leonardoda-vinci.org/
If you look on page 3 of the link I provided above you will see a sketch of his flying machine.

Wow! I'm amazed. I never saw his horse drawings before or his equine statue. They're brilliant.

 

[mrzz]

I'd say we do not disagree yet, but do not understand each other because we just pay attention to different minute aspects. Maybe we have better understanding, if I precise what I mean by "It's impossible to have a break through that would negate the basic laws". All physical laws are only true up to certain uncertainty level, i.e. how well we can measure them. Mass preservation law is true in a world where there is no radioactivity and no nuclear reactions, because they were not understood when mass preservation was formulated. Then came the understanding of nuclear reaction and E = mc^2 you quote. I would not say this example broken mass preservation law but extended it to the situations previously unknown. Mass preservation is still valid in most situations (incl. teachings at schools) and will be valid forever. There will always be uncertainty at the frontier of any physical science and the uncertainty of our measures of this world (I acknowledge Heisenberg Principle here) but every new, more accurate theory will extend the old existing one rather than negating it, in a sense of overturning it. An example of such science negation, as physically impossible wishful thinking is present climate science denial. Special interest groups who deny the basic laws of physics climate science is base upon, are constantly talking about "uncertainties" and that a "scientific breakthrough" will come that will negate the current conclusions of said science. Nothing more wrong. Any "breakthrough" will only "fine tune" our understanding of earth climate system but do not overturn the science based on 200y of evidence and logical conclusions (since Joseph Fourier) and the scientific foundations as solid as mass preservation in the form I brought above. Of course to be very precise, there is still tiny uncertainty of everything and always be (thanks to Heisenberg) but when said uncertainty is just less than 5%, statisticians start talking about "settled science", i.e. no one expect any overturning breakthrough in the future. Things like mass preservation (within uncertainly at the forefront as clarified above) are so unlikely to be overturned, that there is no point talking about it.
I claim revolutions in art don't have such constrains. It it possible to completely overturn the conventional rules. Example: pentatonic scale in music or even atonic music. These examples simply negated the classic chromatic scale and dodecaphonic music. This example shows the art be not bound by the existing laws/conventions as much as the science is.
In case you don't know what pentatonic music is, watch this video where Bobby McFerrin aptly explains pentatonic scale to the audience. Great guy, the best "art communicator" in music!

Thanks for the clarification, @Chris Koziarz . I see your point now. I surely agree with the "constructive" aspect of science, and that, in regards to observed phenomena, this is crucial. Conceptually, though, the conversation could be a bit different -- that is, we can basically negate the conceptual premises of a previous theory, as long as we find a way to explain the same facts at least as satisfactorily as before. In such a case the mapping between the languages of both theories could be something non-trivial, a good example is the leap from classical to quantum mechanics. But anyway I get your point that the constructive aspect of science constrains the breakthroughs.

Given that, yes, art is more "unbounded" than science. But I still find interesting to see that on average artists are as much "bounded" than scientists.

P.S. Edit: By the way, thanks for that video!