Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Dan,
> 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.
To help us see the world differently is the mark of the highest level of
science. The classic examples are Newtonian mechanics which helped the world
understand the motion of the planets around the sun and then Einstein who
changed this world-view. Other examples are Darwin and then Watson and Crick
who have changed the world-view with respect to the origin of the species
(and humanity). The world-view is a central notion of science and hence
comparison to Weston, Adams et al. is quite relevent.
Science is more about changing the world-view using theories validated
by evidence than it is about increasing a volume of facts. There is often
alot of art in good science and alot of science in good art.
Jonathan Borden