Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

How is perception an advantage for artists but obstacle for scientists?

Recommended Posts

The full question is:

To what extent may the subjective nature of perception be regarded as an advantage for artists, but an obstacle to be overcome for scientists?

I was thinking of saying that artists have a more subjective art because art is the perspective of the artist. In science perception has to be more fixed. They must look to prove specific phenomena in specific terms. If it passes the test then it is more true and if it doesn't pass then it is disproven. Also in observing art, it is okay to intepret art differently from someone else and even differently from the actual artist. Science is taught more rigorously where our natural phenoma occurs though "x" process because of "x". Science does not have muct leeway to be flexible.

I was wondering if anyone could think of any more examples to support the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you think it fits or not, but you could probably also talk a bit about graphics and how things like different sorts of axes on graphs and different types of graph can skew scientific results in the way they're viewed, to put a spin on things. So perception is an obstacle to an objective answer. Everything in science has to be objective, and perception forces it all to be subjective, and all that. I think that would be quite a useful example (:

Also with perception and artists, you could argue that it's actually an obstacle. It's like looking for the object of 'beauty' -- you can never put any reliable sort of value judgement on your work. So you could say that art has no ultimate goal, which creates problems in terms of people advancing and succeeding in the field, when there's nowhere specific for them to go. No artist is ever appreciated by 100% of people.

Another scientific thing which is interesting is where you reach subject areas like evolutionary biology, where nothing can be tested, only studied in hindsight. You have people who just dismiss it instantly and say that people were made in the image of a deity, and then people who try to trace evolution through similar structures-- the problem being who determines whether they're similar or not. Like vestigial limbs and joint patterns being similar through nearly all mammals, it's a question of perception which has to be qualified into something objective for one of the main proofs of evolutionary theory to hold.

I hope that's maybe helped a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.