Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, > Science, I think, does progress [...]. Art doesn't. As you say, it depends on what you mean by 'progress'. So if you claim that progress in art and progress in science depend on different meanings of 'progress' then the statement above is equivocation. Scientific progress can, I think, be measured in only 1 way: as an increase in the sum of human knowledge. eg learning that microbes rather than evil sprits cause diseases. The utilitarian measure of progress that people often apply - an increase in the sum of human happiness - is probably a measure of social progress rather than anything else. Understanding that infection is caused by bacteria is a matter of scientific progress. Applying that knowledge to curing diseases rather than to dropping biological bombs on villages is a matter of social progress. I think this is enough to demonstrate that scientific progress can't be measured by the change in the sum of human happiness. However, if science increases human knowledge, it is certainly not the only activity that does so. One other activity that can do this is art: who would claim that the novels of Dickens, or Tolstoy or Camus have not increased human knowledge? Progress in art, as you suggest, is not defined in terms such as 'Snoop Doggy Dog is better than Mozart', or 'Jeff Koons is better than Leonardo da Vinci'. Rather, I would suggest that progress in art comes from expanding the boundaries of art and being able to justify this expansion in art historical terms. In these terms Diane Arbus's work probably does show that photography as art has progressed since Matthew Brady's day. Of course this does not mean that Diane Arbus's work is somehow superior to Matthew Brady's, or vice-versa. That sort of comparison is meaningless. Incidentally, we haven't entirely "abandoned the notion that infection is caused by foul humors and nasty spirits". I once met a man in Zanzibar who had a similar ear condition to mine. Whereas my problems are being corrected by surgery, he was placing his trust in djinns living in a nearby cave. He was too poor to have a choice in the matter, and his society is too poor to offer him a choice. I'm sure it wouldn't take much searching among the religious and the New Agers in our societies to find people who actively choose djinns and spirits (by whatever name) over science. - --- Bob mailto:bob@web-options.com Saturday, June 30, 2001, 12:27:55 PM, you wrote: > Bob, > Thank you for a chance to state what I meant with a bit more precision. I argee with > you. Art history progresses. So does musicology. New techniques are discovered. > Newer, more accurate information comes to light. Old things long lost are found. I > also agree that art, at least some of the time, builds on what came before. But, I do > not think that art "progresses" in the same sense that science does. > I would argue that it was progress when we abandonned the notion that infection was > caused by foul humors and nasty spirits and figured out that it was caused by > microbes. One notion is demonstrably not correct and the other has helped create a > healthier place to live. Matthew Brady's photographs are certainly different than > those of Diane Arbus. I hesitate to call the journey from one to the other progress > because it's much harder to make the case that one is superior to the other. I much > prefer to say that art changes or evolves. > There are, of course, people who are more than glad to attempt to make the case that > one form or art is superior to the another. And, I agree, this is where the notion > of method comes into to play. I don't think that you can demonstrate that folk music > is "better" than rock in the same sense that you can demonstrate that the > acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth is 16 ft/sec/sec. Quite the > contrary. Art is exempt from this requirement. Science isn't. > If art progresses, and I don't think it does, then it certainly progresses in a very > different sense of the word than science. I certainly argee with you in that method > makes them different. But, I also think that these vastly different notions of > progress are also one of the things which make art and science different. I don't > mean to quibble. For me art and science move in such different ways that I prefer to > use totally different words to describe this motion. We may disagree. That's fine. > After all, it's the LUG. > Barney