What is art?

[mrzz]

In that time, he could not paint from a photo as anyone could do today.

True, but there is a long and proud history of interesting optical devices intended to help the painter. I instantly remembered Durer's perspective machine, and if my memory were better I could name a few dutch painters who used a lot of proto-cameras to help in their paintings. Those would not be helpful in case of a moving horse, sure. In that regard, a very interesting fact, if you guys don't know it already, is that the mechanics of the horse's gallop is generally wrongly depicted in paintings, and that changed only with modern photography.

 

[Horsa]

True, but there is a long and proud history of interesting optical devices intended to help the painter. I instantly remembered Durer's perspective machine, and if my memory were better I could name a few dutch painters who used a lot of proto-cameras to help in their paintings. Those would not be helpful in case of a moving horse, sure. In that regard, a very interesting fact, if you guys don't know it already, is that the mechanics of the horse's gallop is generally wrongly depicted in paintings, and that changed only with modern photography.

Thank you very much for the extra information. I really appreciate it. The information on the 2nd link you shared was particularly interesting & you even posted a link which featured a painting by my favourite artist. Mind you, he is 1 of the most famous equine artists. :0) I knew the picture was by George Stubbs before I read the name underneath. That's another 1 of George Stubbs better pieces. I don't like his pictures of horses being attacked by big cats.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

True, but there is a long and proud history of interesting optical devices intended to help the painter. I instantly remembered Durer's perspective machine, and if my memory were better I could name a few dutch painters who used a lot of proto-cameras to help in their paintings. Those would not be helpful in case of a moving horse, sure. In that regard, a very interesting fact, if you guys don't know it already, is that the mechanics of the horse's gallop is generally wrongly depicted in paintings, and that changed only with modern photography.

I vaguely remember discussion with my big brother, when I was a child, about different horse gaits and especially gallop, be the most sophisticated among any four-legged animals, and the mechanics of the moves not fully understood. But that was long time ago and completely forgotten. The blog you linked to, refreshed my memories of those discussions & showed the artistic perspective throughout history. Beautiful info. Thanks!

 

[Horsa]

I vaguely remember discussion with my big brother, when I was a child, about different horse gaits and especially gallop, be the most sophisticated among any four-legged animals, and the mechanics of the moves not fully understood. But that was long time ago and completely forgotten. The blog you linked to, refreshed my memories of those discussions & showed the artistic perspective throughout history. Beautiful info. Thanks!

My Brother & Sisters were much older than me. My parents believed that "children should be seen but not heard" so as a child I only really spoke to people when I went to Grandma's & played with my cousins. Grandma used to teach the 3 R's so used to talk to me & listen to me. I learnt about equine locomotion through T.V. programmes & books though. Mr.Zz's blog was very interesting though.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

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!

At a risk of sounding too stubborn and too finicky, I'd respond to your "leap from classical to quantum mechanics" example by recalling opinions that "quantum mechanics" is a misnomer that has very little to do with classical mechanics. It's really a world different than a classical world, described by probability distributions of matter/energy in time-space. It's like comparing centuries old boolean logic with fuzzy logic. The latter is quite different, although can be thought of as classical logic superset. The most important detail to recall here is the fuzzy logic is formulated in such a way that when "truth distribution" is reduced to a simple binomial with p=0.5, the whole theory becomes a classical boolean logic.
The way you qualified your example: "non-trivial mapping between the languages of both theories", suggests you could agree with me above. In the end we maybe arguing about the nomenclature here and the matters of opinion.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

My Brother & Sisters were much older than me. My parents believed that "children should be seen but not heard" so as a child I only really spoke to people when I went to Grandma's & played with my cousins. Grandma used to teach the 3 R's so used to talk to me & listen to me. I learnt about equine locomotion through T.V. programmes & books though. Mr.Zz's blog was very interesting though.

What is "3 R"? Does it anything to do with your grandma listening to you as opposed to your parents, or is it just an incidental activity?
BTW: Polish equivalent of the saying you recall above is more brutal, translated literally: "children and fish have no voice".

 

[Horsa]

What is "3 R"? Does it anything to do with your grandma listening to you as opposed to your parents, or is it just an incidental activity?
BTW: Polish equivalent of the saying you recall above is more brutal, translated literally: "children and fish have no voice".

The 3 R's are what reading, writing & arithmetic used to be called at school at 1 time. I know that's not a fitting name for them because only 1 of the activities begins with R & the name would suggest all 3. Going with how they sound you could understand how writing got put under that name but not arithmetic but that's what they used to call it when Grandma taught. In modern terms you could say that Grandma was an English & maths teacher. Grandma didn't only listen to me but taught me things & spoke to me too.

Thank you very much for the cultural information.

 

[mrzz]

that "quantum mechanics" is a misnomer that has very little to do with classical mechanics.

In a sense, yes. Both theories are completely different from a conceptual point of view. But the point is that they both should describe, at some (very large) extent at least, the same phenomena. Of course, to describe a typical macroscopic object with quantum mechanics you need a good "quantum to classical" limiting procedure (there are some, but yes, it is an open field of inquiry yet). Anyway, phenomenological evidence is rich to illustrate how you get "more classical" when you go from micro to macro.

In other words, when the realm of empirical evidence entered the microscopic world, quantum mechanics did the trick, without "throwing away" classical mechanics, much in the sense we discussed above. But conceptually is a completely different approach, which in fact was my initial point (remember that we were discussing how much of a revolution, or a break of paradigm, both a scientist and an artist are allowed to make).

I agree that, in general, an artist has more freedom. But the QM example is an interesting one. The roots of QM lie in the work of Planck, and even without clearly understanding the whole picture, by introducing ad hoc energy quantization he broke an extremely basic and profound paradigm. Honestly, for me this is by far the most radical scientific revolution of all time, but is surely an extremely peculiar example, and, in general, it does not change the more balanced view that artists have more freedom for "revolution" than scientists (which is your initial point). But it gives an interesting complement, in that sense that when scientists make a revolution, it can be even more radical than an artistic revolution.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Thanks mrzz for your apt description how QM revolutionised scientific thinking. I think we can be both happy what we said & can close this subject.

 

[Horsa]

Thanks mrzz for your apt description how QM revolutionised scientific thinking. I think we can be both happy what we said & can close this subject.

I thought that the subject was closed ages ago on the question of "what is art?" though the question of "what is good art?" never took off. That is why I shared pictures of what I though was good art. I enjoyed watching your discussion thought & managed to understand most of it. I wonder if we could continue the topic by sharing works by artists we think are good maybe with information about the works or artists & the reasons why we like them. I also wonder if I could ask you 2 gentlemen some questions about what you said because like I said before I'm an average person & you 2 are scientists & although I understood most of what you said I wasn't familiar with a couple of terms you used.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I thought that the subject was closed ages ago on the question of "what is art?" though the question of "what is good art?" never took off. That is why I shared pictures of what I though was good art. I enjoyed watching your discussion though & managed to understand most of it. I wonder if we could continue the topic by sharing works by artists we think are good maybe with information about the works or artists & the reasons why we like them. I also wonder if I could ask you 2 gentlemen some questions about what you said because like I said before I'm an average person & you 2 are scientists & although I understood most of what you said I wasn't familiar with a couple of terms you used.

I'll answer every question you have with pleasure. In case I'm unable to answer some minute details, maybe mrzz can...
Subject reopened at your request!

 

[Horsa]

I'll answer every question you have with pleasure. In case I'm unable to answer some minute details, maybe mrzz can...
Subject reopened at your request!

O.K. Thank you very much. I'll start asking questions later.

 

[Horsa]

Question 1.

I've copied & pasted @mrzz's words from an earlier post.

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.

Could you please explain the difference between the 3? I know what physics itself is but am unfamiliar with the other 2. Is it a question of scale?

Edit: after reading a bit I realised I knew what nuclear physics was too. So I've actually got 2 questions. 1. What is low energy applied nuclear physics?
2. What is the difference in scale between nuclear physics & low energy applied nuclear physics, please?

 

[Horsa]

Question 2. Also copied & pasted from @mrzz Thomas Khun's approach to scientific evolution

Which is?

 

[Horsa]

Question 3. Copied & pasted from Chris's post.

Heisenberg Principle

What is that please?

 

[Horsa]

Question 4.

Chris mentions the difference between quantum mechanics & classical mechanics. What is the difference in scale, please?

 

[Horsa]

I had a few more questions but found out I could work out the answers myself by what was said.

I'm sorry for saying that things kept being took off-topic & put back on-topic again & thought the reason for this was it was done to death although the discussion of what good art is didn't take off. The name of this thread would also mean that it would make sense to show pictures we like because we're showing what art is rather than defining it. Thinking about things I can see where the similarities lie. I would also say there is another similarity in that some great artists were great scientists too. I'll mention Leonardo Da Vinci because although he's most famous for his art he was also a scientist as can be seen from some of his drawings & he was the 1st person to come up with a flying machine though it would never have been successful like I mentioned earlier with a reason & link to a page with his artworks on. I also know that George Stubbs studied the anatomy of horses because he liked his paintings to be anatomically correct & he wrote a book on horse anatomy like I also mentioned above. I would also say that scientists & inventors have to be imaginative, practical & creative like artists but artists mainly deal with techniques as well as imagination, practicality & creativity whereas scientists mainly deal with theories & knowledge as well as the 3 qualities I've just mentioned.

 

[mrzz]

@Horsa, maybe we should open a new thread for the questions you asked, so we can duly go back to topic (believe me, I want to), specially after @Chris Koziarz found the most polite and elegant (and also timely) way to tell someone (me) to shut up!!

 

[Horsa]

@Horsa, maybe we should open a new thread for the questions you asked, so we can duly go back to topic (believe me, I want to), specially after @Chris Koziarz found the most polite and elegant (and also timely) way to tell someone (me) to shut up!!

O.K. MrZz's Science thread has a nice ring to it. Oh poor MrZz! Being told to be quiet. That's not nice. As I'm the most loquacious person on here I'd have thought I was going to be the 1st person people told to shut up. :0)

 

[Horsa]

I forgot to mention question 5. earlier.

@mrzz mentioned ad hoc energy quantization. What is that please?