I think contemporary neuroscience completely refutes the sharp distinction between art and science offered by Frances. The distinction is not intrinsic but merely utilitarian, meaning how we choose to apply our thinking to human designed realities. Several years ago, Antonio Damasio wrote a whole book on this: The Feeling of What Happens. Others have added to the thesis through extended clinical research. By dividing art as a matter of feeling and instinct from science as a matter of rationality, Frances misses the measured evidence that the former is not possible without the latter and vice-versa. WC
________________________________ From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:57:41 AM Subject: RE: Architecture and Philosophy: Review 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.
