I should like to thank you for demonstrating my point that the process of Art is about trying to identify facts.
The Artist you describe goes through a repetitious process "in order to perfect technique" [...] "drawing muscle after muscle in pose after pose until the technique has been perfected". You then substantiate the idea, pointing out that there is some point of "mastery" to be obtained. So, the artistic 'process' is the same regardless of whether the Art is 'fine' or 'contemporary'.
Unfortunately, you then slip up in your version of how a Scientist might work - since there would be very little point any Scientist working repetitiously - Once a measurement has been taken or an experiment completed, it is highly improbable that the obtained result would change in anything like that same way that an Artists drawing skills might improve with repetition. In fact, a change of result would most likely imply that the Scientist had made an error of some type, and his work was therefore flawed.
What would happen instead, assuming that the Scientist had some basic level of competence, would be that after they had taken a measurement or logged an experiment, they would move on to measure something similar or to conduct their experiment in a subtly different way ��� methodically searching for any differences they could find.
Finally, you can argue that anything is subjective if you are a good enough Sophist. Equally, we could sublate that Art doesn't exist, because Painting and Photography is simply a result of Chemistry and Optics, Music is just an effect of Physics and Acoustics, while Dance is the outcome of Physiology and Mechanics etc. etc.
"'All the world loves a lover' is the stupidest proverb of all. Everybody goes insane with envy"
- Aleister Crowley
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Max Irwin <[address removed]> wrote:
> From: Max Irwin <[address removed]>
> Subject: Re: [Artist-seeks-scientist] last night - art/sci
> To: [address removed]
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:10 AM
> It may not be as one sided
> as you think, as traditionally artists were apprentices of
> masters who would go through just as rigorous a process as
> Scientists. Whereas the Scientist might work
> repetitiously to formulate a hypothesis/theory/proof, an
> artist would go through a similar process in order to
> perfect technique. For example, if you look at
> traditional artists studies of say, anatomy, you will find a
> rigorous repetition of drawing muscle after muscle in pose
> after pose until the technique has been perfected, and the
> artist then understands the concept and technique fully as
> they ascend to mastery. While contemporary
> artists may go through a more chaotic state as you had
> mentioned, one cannot discount the discipline
> required to attain such abilities of the 'fine'
> Another interesting point
> worth mentioning here is that while, as you said, the
> resulting beauty of a work of art is subjective, one can
> also place subjective judgement of a resulting
> Scientist's proof in terms of relevance (see the Annals
> of Improbable Research -- http://improbable... ).
> Thanks, Max.