Guys: This thread has gotten out of hand as to whom said what. I think many of the points of view being expressed are based on truisms about art and science that further muddle things. The idea of art is not historically fixed in time. Since the industrial revolution and certainly since 1839 it has changed with almost each generation in the developed world and more slowly elsewhere. That the art world is controlled by exclusive cabals and is all crap (because I don't get it) is oft repeated ever since the Neolithic. There is no "academic" art now in the sense that approved styles and technique are taught or that academics are the gate-keepers. Art is more than ever a pluralistic enterprise. Not being able to communicate with numbers or language becomes less of a disadvantage (if it ever was) for artists as time passes. Modes of artistic expression unimaginable today will continue to be invented. Photography's core technology was mature by the turn of the century of its invention. Likewise its use as an artistic medium matured quickly. No, photography is NOT art, it is a medium just like paint. To insist that photography requires a thorough grounding in technique or science in order to do art is not much different than saying the same for paint. If you want to argue craft there is some room for that but not much. Craft lies between (or gets in the way of!) science and art. It is about having the skill required at hand if it is needed. Artists learn to judge when their craft skills lag their expressive requirements. Or quite the reverse - when things become too slick, as often happens. AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book FREE COPY http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Question > From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:01 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Fri, December 18, 2009 18:38, Ruey wrote: > > Why is it that in earlier times science and art could coexist > > comfortably and today so many artists seem scared to death of learning > > any science and so many engineer-scientists find no value in art or > > desire to create it? I wonder if this modern extensive degree of > > specialization and complete distrust of the other or their knowledge, > > hasn't a great deal to with our inability to solve the problems we face > > in the world today? What could an instructor do to bridge that gap? > I don't know that the divide is as sharp as you say; I know lots of > artists with lots of interest in science, and some scientists with an > interest in art. > It is true that it's harder and harder to be an expert in just one field; > so being an expert in two is really difficult. We know a lot more than we > did 100 years ago. > Another factor, I think, is that lots of academic cutting edge art just > isn't accessible; it's part of a conversation that went private about 80 > years ago, or else maybe it's just faking it (not being part of that > conversation, I wouldn't know). This means pragmatic practical types, > like most scientists, glance at a few things, laugh, and move on to > something else. Art is a standing joke today. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
