....
>
> The third leg of Chartrand's table is art: "if natural science is the study of
>the outer, material
> world; then
> art is the study of the inner, subjective world. (This is a long way from saying
>that art is
> subjective.
> REH) If the sciences involve the search for objective truth, then the arts
>involve search for
> subjective,
> value-laden truth. Scientific knowledge depreciates, while knowledge in the arts
>tends to
> appreciate
> through time. If science uses reductive methods, then art generates aesthetic
>knowledge - a gestalt
>
> sense of wholeness or, rightness."
>
Old science is as much part of new science, as old art is part of new
art. Without the results or even failings of old science, there
couldn't be new one. There is no depreciation only updating in a
progressively better approximation to reality.
I don't know about aesthetic knowledge or some definable wholeness or
rightness. But I agree, that good art reflects on and helps us to
understand and live with reality. But do we have to be "knowledgable"
to understand it?
I will try to find out something about those neuro-psycho thingies,
my skeptometer senses pseudo-science...
Please try to be a little bit more consise and to the point, we are
not all professors or lecturers you know and some of us have to earn
a living, bring up families etc, etc, but still would like to keep up
with the gist of what's going on... Or am I the only "layperson" on
this sometimes annoyingly longwinded and self-congratulatory list?
Eva (from the madding crowds)
> Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
>
>
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
