Frances to Michael...
There seems to be more similarities between art and science than
there are differences. They are for example both acts of only
normal humans, and tend to be engaged in naturally by instinct
without any undue nurturing. There however seems to be a clear
deference, if not a clear difference, between art and science.
Science is likely driven to take objects by intelligence and
knowledge. Art is given uncontrolled to sense for its own sake
solely alone. Art need only appeal to primitive emotional
feelings in the complete absence of even any primal knowledge.
Art initiates in life as being an essential part of the normal
human organism, and thus readily prepares for science, because
science cannot generate itself without the human being and its
artistic initiation, along with such acts as creation and
invention and innovation. For science to consume art is not for
science to embrace art totally, but rather for science to be
guided by art. While humans likely cannot survive and thrive
without the act of art, which they will engage in despite
themselves, they can exist quite well without the act of science,
aside from their primal intelligence and innate curiosity to know
the stuff around them. Art is limited as to what objects can be
art, but once objects are smartly agreed to be art, the works and
say their beauty will likely remain as art virtually forever.
Science ironically is not limited as to what objects can be
science or that it can study, but its objects are variable and
its truths are very fallible. It might thus be held that real
applied instrumental art is exact formal fundamental science.
In a related normative vein, aesthetics also prepares for logics.
Aesthetics is concerned with what ideals in say good forms and
good goals that there ought to be. It holds that there may exist
in general such objects as ideals and goods and forms and goals,
aside from their specific actual concrete occurrences, which are
dealt with by ethics. Aesthetics posits that objects ought to
give of themselves freely, for the mere sake of doing so, and for
no other reason, yet expect nothing in return for any effort
involved. The basis of this in the cosmic sphere is evolutionary
love. This is why aesthetics appeals so well as a support to art.
It is also an excellent preparatory guide to science, which
furthermore ought to consume every bit of it.
If this little effort of mine, at attempting to define the
difference between art and science, fails to satisfy your
request, perhaps you might consider enlightening me further with
your ideas on the matter.
Frances partly wrote...
If your excellent question is correctly understood by me, you
seem to be wondering about the term "object" as to what it is,
and what it may stand for, and in what capacity it may do so.
Michael wrote...
No. I asked you what difference you discern between art and
science. I mentioned 'object' because you said that architecture
is an object of either art or science, or both. Indeed,
apparently you believe science embraces art ("is consummatory of
art"). I'd like to know what differentiates art and science.
