Has art ever given us, in a purely physical form any benefite as a species?

[Ravenloft]

Im curious what people have to say...

I believe its given us the ability to create certain things that exist today... IE Jules Verne and the submarine, and so on... But is that the cause or the effect of art?

 

[Coolville]

art is a big word.

I think that art has a function. It moves us. It triggers our emotions. I get the creeps when I see Van Gogh's Sunflowers and feel melancholy when I see Munch's The Scream.

We create art in order to feel and transfer those emotions to others.

something the cockroaches haven't figured out how to do.

 

[Ravenloft]

Yes, I understand the emotions and inspiration art can give us, but can art ever be directly linked to advances in humanity? Thats what im asking...

 

[Coolville]

okay, artsy fartsy answers, but...

art inspires. One great idea leads to another.

But there are countless links between art and science, if that's your angle.

Verne, Bradbury, Clarke, Gibson. All their visions led to scientific advancements. The sub, the space station, virtual reality. All given humanity the means and the desire to push onwards and try to understand ourselves.

 

[Ravenloft]

Yes, that is what I am trying to explore with this thread, thank you Coolville.

And so, even if they didn't come up with their visions, don't you think we would have eventually created the things they imagined? For every one that writes it down, there's 100 that have the same idea... Like BNL says. "Its all been done before."

 

[Starfish]

Raven. Have you ever heard of a man named Leonardo Davinci?


The answer is yes. Clearly yes on so many levels.

It teaches us that was can use our minds to create therefore advance ourselves.

Art imitates life, but life evolves from our needs to have connection to our creative abilities. Human life evolves from art's inspirations. I am the firm believer that it hasn't all been done before. That is sort of purposterous. What is going on is that humans get stuck in cycles on concepts they cling to. Things that stand out to us at the time, but really have little lasting effect on anything. Pop art is like that.

Really though, Visual Art is very communicative of ideas and thoughts that are not expressed as easily in words, that whole cultures are very impressioned by.

I guess it all depends on what artforms you speak of.

If we are talking about crappy art deco sculpture, no, but if you are talking mastering the artful technique of creating something that resounds a concept that is otherwise lost to culture and needs to be regained, then yes.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, I understand the emotions and inspiration art can give us, but can art ever be directly linked to advances in humanity? Thats what im asking...

Two words: Leonardo DaVinci

Not only a great artist, but a great inventor and great thinker.

His studies of the human body made possible a great deal of knowledge about human anatomy; His models and drawings of flying machines not only inspired dreamers but made concrete contributions to the science of aeronautics.

Other artists he inspired made similar contributions both direct and indirect to many of the sciences.

More directly, principles developed or discovered by artists are used to create work environments that don't drive us crazy -- at least not because of the color and layout of the buildings, although the people we work with might overcome the best efforts of the artists and architects.

Speaking of architecture, that is a field that is both science AND art, but it was art first. The science came later.

 

[Coolville]

I agree, but for the phrase "crappy art deco sculpture".

Every form of art has a function in the big picture. Like a butterfly flapping it's wings in China may have an effect on which bag of pasta I buy... or whatever...

Art Deco is a major period in architecture and that's okay if you don't like it, but you can't deny it's function.

Art must either thrill you or irritate you. As long as it gives you an emotional reaction.

 

[Weird Harold]

Raven. Have you ever heard of a man named Leonardo Davinci?.

Damn fast typing rich people with fast connections. <grump> <grumble>

As least we didn't make the same points about Mr.DaV.

 

[Starfish]

Sorry, Coolville, I meant that very loosly.

I really meant to say modern collectable trinket stuff. I was neglecting to think of the whole movement that was the Art Deco and Birth of Contemporary Arts.

 

[Starfish]

Damn fast typing rich people with fast connections. <grump> <grumble>

As least we didn't make the same points about Mr.DaV.

rich?

Where?

I am 32 k in debt! I wanna be rich, does that count?

Yes... Many of his drawings were just recently at the Toledo Museum of Art currently. Very nice stuff, very amazing.

http://www.toledomuseum.org/home.html

Vangoh's feilds are coming! I am so excited.

 

[Ravenloft]

Outside of DaVinci, how interconnected are art and science then? And the idea that I was driving at with the 'its all been done before.' comment is that, even back then on a world wide scheme, I am sure that others were having the same realizations, only it was the ones history has seen fit to REMEMBER who were credited with the concepts and so on.

I mean, how hard did it have to be to look at a rock and say. "Hey! That could be my pet rock!" Or am I on way too much medication?

 

[Coolville]

DaVinci was DaMan.

He drew helicopters, among other things.

He designed a bridge which would have been the world's longest - across the Bosphorus.

A copy of it has recently been completed outside of Oslo, as a walkway.

Starfish, I realised you didn't mean it 'like that', but I couldn't help but respond to it.

 

[Starfish]

I can only really relay to you what art is to me, and to be honest, it is really very much just an outlet. I am not so much trying to advance myself, as I am maintianing myself. However, it seems that art has more purpose than just that.

I think that the outlet extends to others through their relating to the art as they view or internalize it, and thus getting a sense of wholeness in humanity. That alone keeps people going, advancing, and growing. If we are all forced to deal with the pain and struggle of life, with no outlet in which we can objectify it out of ourselves, the pain in life could simply destroy us as a whole. Without release, we'd be overwhelmed, so I think it serves us well.

So, in my eyes, art is somewhat theraputic and thus benifiting humans as a whole.

 

[Ravenloft]

Starfish, I feel the same way about art, when I personally sit down to create something, its more of a theraputic release of emotions on paper. But, boy, what a pluse it would be to have actually invented something while you did it, huh?

Leading me to wonder what DaVinci and his kine's motivations were then...

 

[Weird Harold]

Outside of DaVinci, how interconnected are art and science then?

Inextricably intertwined!

See my comment above about architecture for one specific example.

Most of the sciences have their roots in "art" and art is still a large part of many sciences today. The link feeds both ways -- see Ginny's thread on microscopic art and fractal designs.

 

[kotori]

I think it's misleading to look for a direct cause-and-effect type relationship, which is how I've been reading your original (and some subsequent) questions. Art and Science have at their root, the same basic goal--to explain the world, to try and make sense of it all.

Of all the plastic arts, Architecture is perhaps the most integrated, melding Art and Science into something "useful." Vitruvius, a Roman architecture critic, gave us three goals for a "successful" building: Firmness, Commodity and Delight.

A building must stand up, or course, and keep out the weather. A building must be adequate enough in size to accommodate the functions for which it was intended. And a building must provide some pleasure for both the inhabitants and the passer-by. Thus the lowly cowshed, hardly "designed" at all, can in the right circumstances be "architecture." And it is possible, by a deliberate manipulation of any of the three above, for a building itself to be a work of criticism.

Architecture is way cool!

 

[Weird Harold]

Bump for other time zones to play with.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. That is all we know, and all we need to know.

To paraphrase some artsy guy.

 

[Nomad4112000]

Art can inspire a person to do great things or can cause them to despise all they see. It depends on the person and how the feel towards the art. Their are those that feel art is corruption and should be destroyed then their are those that feel art is the greatest thing to expand the mind. I feel art has done a great deal for the human species but in return it has done a lot of damage as well. It all is in your point of view. I like the explanation from Gene Hackman in Superman "A person can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a great adventure another person can read the contents of a bubble gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." But I feel art is inspirational and should be cherished.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I can't answer you in a post. I'd have to write you a play.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Art is essential to learning, it affects the brain and makes it more willing to accept information. Schools with fine arts programs outperform (equivalent money) schools.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think it's misleading to look for a direct cause-and-effect type relationship, which is how I've been reading your original (and some subsequent) questions. Art and Science have at their root, the same basic goal--to explain the world, to try and make sense of it all.

Originally posted by Spinaroonie
Art is essential to learning, it affects the brain and makes it more willing to accept information. Schools with fine arts programs outperform (equivalent money) schools.

Art has more indirect benfits than direct benefits, and as spinaroonie points out, the indirect effects are often more complex and far reaching than any direct effects.

I somethimes think that because Art does have some direct benefits, it misleads people into dividing art into "useful" and "frivilous" categories and downplaying the indirect benefits of Art to society.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Art has more indirect benfits than direct benefits, and as spinaroonie points out, the indirect effects are often more complex and far reaching than any direct effects.

Holy Crap! I was quoted in a Weird Harold post w/o having my argument completely proven untrue! SWEET!

 

[Weird Harold]

Holy Crap! I was quoted in a Weird Harold post w/o having my argument completely proven untrue! SWEET!

I'm sure your comment must have been some sort of mistake. I'll try not to embarrass you like that again.