Re: [Leica] Soapbox discussion about art and science- was PHD Qualifications!

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Jonathan-
Well, I seemed to has misstated my point- I meant SCIENCE and the search for
basic knowledge- to compare artists such as Weston, Adams, et al. is again
an argument of Apples and Oranges!
They didn't further knowledge, scientifically speaking; Their subjective
view of the world was what made them so wonderful. The could 'see' and at
the same time, through their eyes, help US see the world in ways that we had
never seen it. That was their appeal, to our affect, our emotions. They were
not scientists, per se, but visionaries who saw the world differently, and
helped us see it the same way.
They recorded the world around them, and didn't really 'explore' the why and
wherefores of it, or what made it tick.
I would hope, from an artistic standpoint that by 'looking' over the
shoulders of these visionaries, or through their cameras, as it were, that
some of that 'vision' would rub off on me! Alas, as You pointed out, they
are artists, and what they do is art- it is unfortunately something that is
very hard to teach!
Science, and the scientific method is taught, or at least when I was in
school, from about the junior high level onward, and is a technique that is
easy to learn.
Yes, if what Adams, and Weston, Lange, Cunningham and others did and do were
a science, it could be taught, and there would be countless photographers of
that ilk out and about everywhere! No, they are a special breed apart from
science.
As to the second part of your post- the findings of the scientists are
sometimes put to use by the artists, and thus science is rather the tool of
the artist, and not their 'method'. The artists that built the pyramids, to
carry your idea further, used the science of geometry and physics, to
assemble a structure of monumental proportions. The photographer, using the
scientific efforts of the chemists and physicists who discover and develop
the basic principles of the science of photochemistry, can construct their
works, and assemblage of science used to express the artists feelings, and
ideas.
Capturing the heartbreak and despair of the depression, as Lange did, or the
majesty of nature, as Adams did, cannot be called science- it doesn't
advance the sum of 'knowledge'- it advances the human spirit.
Science is about knowing- Art is about feeling. Both are intrinsic to
mankind, but as separate as hands and feet!
Dan


_
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] PhD qualifications


> Dan Post wrote:
>
>
> > Don't sell yourself short. The great majority of the basic science which
> has
> > added so exponentially to the base of human knowledge has not been added
> > because of 'great leaps' of insight or genius, but rather by the many
> 'baby
> > steps' of millions of scientists who endeavor to answer a nagging
question
> > of 'WHY?'.
>
>     I beg to differ but Thomas Kuhn's argument is well known. To bring
this
> closer to "on topic" Weston, Adams, Cartier-Bresson have each added
> infinitely more to the art of photography than you or I summed with the
> millions of other amateur and professional photographers. Not that this
> ought dissuade anyone from photography for personal or commercial reasons.
> We *do* see farther standing on the shoulders of giants, but not as a pile
> of people squating on eachother.
>
> >Of ten these questions are rather mundane, and seem esoteric
> >  Sorta like Erwin's research!), but these baby steps or basic building
> > blocks add up over time... the pyramids were not made by one person ( I
> > know- a shipload of aliens did it over a holiday weekend!) nor of one
> block
> > of stone, but the amassed effort of many, and the sheer volume of stone
> > accumulated in one place is sort of like our search for knowledge.
> > I am grateful to know so many of you out there who have contributed your
> > blocks of knowledge to the 'pile', so to speak!
>
>     Yes but without the design of the pyramid all this would be is a long
> forgotten pile of rocks.
>
> all the best,
>
> Jonathan Borden
>
>