2 Answers

  1. You can call it that, but it will blur the concept of science to complete inapplicability. The similarities between art and science are much less than the differences, the border between them is clearly visible, if we call both in one word, then we can continue to call everything in a row science.

    There are different points of view on how to draw the line between science and non-science, it is possible by method – and art does not use the scientific method, as this method is not understood, it is possible by the product produced – and works of art are not scientific knowledge, again, with almost any definition of scientific knowledge that will look meaningful.

    I would rather call art a practical form of philosophizing, since aesthetics is a branch of philosophy.

    UPD: There is another important point. Science for many years has been engaged in strengthening the boundaries of the concept, there is a problem of demarcation in it, and many disciplines have left the field of science as unscientific. Art, on the other hand, perceives its limits as a challenge, as something that must be overcome, art is occupied with the aestheticization of reality, and if something is not yet art, this is an occasion to turn it into such. Therefore, it is problematic to include art in science; it is easier to include science in art.

  2. “One of the most powerful motivations leading to science is the desire to get away from everyday life with its painful cruelty and inconsolable emptiness. This reason pushes people with fine emotional strings from personal experiences to the world of objective vision and understanding. … “- from this statement of Einstein, it turns out that it is possible. Those types of art that are subject to existentialism. That is, they do not follow from scientific facts, but from life experience.

Leave a Reply