4 Answers

  1. Hello. You have already understood that the question is very complex. I will also try to clarify the situation from my bell tower of fine arts.

    The first part of the Marlaison Ballet!

    The main attribute of science is scientific laws – invariable conditions for the existence of the described system. For example, the sum of the squares of the legs is equal to the square of the hypotenuse in any right triangle, this is the condition for its existence. There are no such laws in art. Art is also art because it depends on the invariance of the manifestation of human individuality: will, talent, efficiency, etc. By chance, after all. All great artists are great because they broke all existing laws. Such were Giotto, Picasso, Cezanne, Kandinsky, Malevich and many others. They completely rejected all existing ideas about harmony and beauty by that time and presented their aesthetic views. Therefore, human activity is divided into art, which defies laws, and science, which obeys laws.

    The second part of the Marlaison ballet!

    Naturally, there are artists and art historians who conduct scientific work in the field of psychophysiology of image perception, chemistry and physics of color, and art history. The first thing that comes to mind is Leon Batista Alberti with his theoretical “Treatise on Painting”, which, based on the experience of Bruneleschi, scientifically described the observational (Italian perspective); we know and appreciate I. Guette and J. Schulz. Itten, whose work on the nature of color is based on empirical data and theoretical conclusions. There is a B. Rauschenbach, with his theory of perspective representations in art, there are the well-known Lev Vygotsky and Rudolf Arnheim with their theories of the psychology and physiology of perception, which, by the way, are also based on the rich experimental base of German Gestaltists. In general, there are scientific works that find their application directly in the visual arts. The point here is that art has huge interdisciplinary connections, because when we talk about a realistic, academic or analytical representation of the realities of the world around us, we need to know how this world works and how to convey this to the viewer's perception adequately. The opposite is intuitive drawing or perceptual drawing, which is based on sensory perception, displaying one's own associations, and visual drawing. And this is also part of art, although scientific understanding does not play an important role in such drawing. So far, in any normal educational institution, it is taught to analyze the structure of nature, and not to draw. Therefore, they display the nature after a thorough analysis of its shape, tone, and color, and draw it based on their knowledge. So, the summary of the second part is as follows: although art may not have its own laws, it uses the laws of other disciplines that study the world around them. When we draw a person, we study anatomy; when we draw nature, we study biology; when we draw historical pictures, we study history; when we draw life pictures, we study sociology; and so on. And here fine art could claim to be a natural science practical discipline, as it was treated, for example, by Leonardo da Vinci, who can fairly be attributed to both scientists and artists, BUT only if an analytical approach to the display of the surrounding world is provided. However, when we talk about all art, we can not ignore the perceptual or intuitive drawing. (подробнее можно ознакомиться здесь: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5faa6ef7aaa3aa095aeef07a/izobrazitelnoe-iskusstvo-i-buduscee-chast-3-leo-navsegda-603918fb82fc21754d0ccb1c)

    The third part of the Marlaison Ballet!

    There is a classifier of specialties of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (Higher Attestation Commission) in the scientific direction 17.00.00 Art History. Various scientists are working in this area. I think that when you immerse yourself in the visual arts, you somehow have inconsistencies that require scientific understanding. For me personally, such an area has become the normative basic theory of composition, which, in my opinion, does not exist. And you can even argue with me, but first go to any bookstore, which is now very convenient to collect books on composition, calmly sit in a corner and read. Just look at the content and you will have some questions. For example, why is it that in one book rhythm (or contrast, it doesn't matter at all) is called the rule of composition, in another it is a means of expression , and in a third it is a law (which in art cannot be)? Unfortunately, there are a lot of recommendations accumulated over the entire history of art, which wander from book to book in the author's interpretation, and which no one has tried to standardize, and such a standard is absolutely necessary at least for the unity of education in at least one individual country, and maybe even in the world. We, for example, move from school to school, and there is an educational standard due to which we get the same basic knowledge common to all for life and communication. “We learn from the same primers” as Makarevich sang:”…that's why you don't have to explain anything to anyone.” And artists often speak their own invented language. And every teacher, if you'll excuse me, is “every gopher in the agronomist field.” And then we have all the children who suffered from such non-standard training. And how to communicate when one implies one thing, the other another? So, for example, I think in the direction of standardization of composition theory. You can view it here:

    https://artgryada.ru/avtorskaya-struktura-i-soderzhanie-org/

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-sootnoshenii-zakonov-printsipov-i-pravil-kompozitsii-v-izobrazitelnom-iskusstve

    I think that an experienced eye will find other problems that require its own theoretical understanding.

  2. I don't think art really solved anything at all. In the global universal sense-of course not. Art doesn't create a cancer vaccine, it can't save you from an earthquake, it doesn't prevent wars, and it doesn't pave the way for other planets. Art, in the generally accepted sense, is created to ENTERTAIN people. Make them feel stronger, think faster, and distract a tired person from serious life problems.

    I don't really understand what “art as a science”is! What is this all about? I understand what the “science of art”is. There is a very serious science about painting. About its history and technologies. About techniques, methods and materials in painting. About styles, trends, and genres. Scrupulous research into the life and work of artists. This science is called art criticism. There are similar sciences about music, theater, cinema, architecture, and literature. But, once again, this is the SCIENCE OF ART, not “art as a science”.

  3. To begin with, art does not solve problems as a science and is not really a science. I read the comments here. Many people write that art is necessary to entertain, while science cures diseases, prolongs human life, makes it easier, helps to explore space, and so on. And it's true. Art cannot solve such problems, but art solves problems not physically, but mentally. So, let's rephrase your question: what serious problems does art solve?

    First, art is necessary for people to look more objectively at certain issues or problems. Yes, I wrote objectively, despite the fact that art is subjective. Let me give you an example. The question of” war ” and what role it plays for humanity.

    For example, if we read the book “On the Western Front without Changes” by Erich Maria Remarque, then after reading it we will conclude that “war” is a tragedy, that it destroys people, leaves them without families, mothers lose their husbands and sons, children become orphans, etc.

    Thus, we have the impression of a war. But don't you think we're looking at it too one-sidedly? And that's when Uncle Tolkien comes to us and throws his Lord of the Rings book in our faces. But why? – you may ask – How will a fantasy fairy tale help us to better understand the “war”? Make no mistake, this work of art is much deeper than it seems at first glance.

    If we read “The Lord of the Rings”, we will draw a different conclusion from the work. What is actually war also has positive qualities. So after the war, two representatives of warring races became best friends (Legolas and Gimli), it was after the war that Aragorn became king, not because he was the son of Arathorn and the heir of Isildur, but also because he was an excellent leader who did not sit on the throne and watched his people fight the orcs, but led them and together with them he fought side by side. It was after the war that Gandalf went from grey to white, and it was after the war that poor Golum would finally stop suffering and retire with the ring. “War is the engine of progress” is exactly what the book is about.

    Now let's look at real life. After all, it is thanks to the war that there is an atomic bomb, which holds back the Third world War. And the Cold War, thanks to it, the Russians were the first to go into space, and the Americans were the first to go to the moon. Think about it, would they do this if there was no competition? Rivalry and war drive progress. Now we're not so lopsided about the war, are we? We understand that the world is not so simple, that the world is not divided into black and white, that the world is too complex to draw unambiguous conclusions. Do you understand? I didn't fight in the war myself, but I understand these things. And how? Thanks to art. That is, art affects me psychologically and spiritually. At the same time, I can get aesthetic pleasure from art. And there are a huge number of such eternal and relevant topics.

    To answer your question briefly, art solves one of the most important problems, namely the transformation of people into more erudite and intelligent in the fields of philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, culture and even science (take the same science fiction). That is, by consuming more works of art, you will have a more objective view of life due to the huge number of subjective views of artists (that is, if you look at the same problem from different angles).

  4. Art doesn't solve anything in the global sense. And as we have already written earlier is not a science. Science is a system of laws of nature, society, thinking, and art is the transfer of emotions, experiences and joy of the artist. In fact, art is simply the beauty of the inner world of a person and his self-realization.
    Although the question probably refers to the visual arts, but do not forget about music, literature, architecture, etc.

Leave a Reply

Categories