- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In the artist's Universe, there can be no dark matter, dark energy, space-time, elementary particles, molecules, nuclear and electromagnetic fields, and many other things that cannot be drawn/depicted because it is impossible to even imagine them. And this is not a problem of the universe. This is the problem of the limitations of our consciousness (common sense), developed by evolution for the survival of intelligent man.
We have no idea what reality really is and, worst of all, we don't even know if there is such a thing as reality at all. But it is also-evolution, accidentally (or maybe not) gave us (or some of us who are called scientists) a sophisticated brain capable of creating new methods-languages for understanding the world-mathematics, physics, …
Most of the creations of the universe are described only by functional equations defined in multidimensional complex spaces and approximate solutions of these equations based on models and fundamental laws of physics. This makes it possible not only to explain most of the observed facts, but also to successfully predict the future of the universe.
The artist deals with his intuition and with the visible (observed) part of the universe, having no idea that the visible part is only a tiny fraction of the unknowable reality. However, I do not rule out that the intuition and skill of an artist (as well as a scientist) can sometimes work wonders and then a brilliant work is born, which is immediately included in the piggy bank of creations of the Universe itself.
By sheer luck I happened to be present at one amazing comparison — the abstraction of the artist Kandinsky at the beginning of the 20th century with the visualization of theoretical calculations of the evolution of the inflationary universe. The comparison (report) at the international conference was conducted by the author of the inflationary model of the Universe, theoretical physicist Andrey Linde. Almost identical images of the results of the model and the artist's abstractions, separated in time by more than 60 years, were called “Kandinsky's Universe”. This is how the artist's name entered the history of Cosmology (see SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN November 1994). It turns out that sometimes the universes of an artist and a physicist are very similar.
The scientist's universe will be logical, everything will be logical there! The scientist will make a precise system where everything is interconnected and works. The scientist's universe will be grayed out. In the artist's Universe, only 50% will be built according to logic, the artist will try to make the universe logical, but only a beautiful universe turns out more!
Nothing. The artist and scientist, as well as the author of the question and his readers, live in the same universe and perform different tasks. The artist's task is to use visual means to show people his ideas and thoughts. The task of a scientist is to use the same visual means (although mostly the printed word) to clearly show people his vision of the principles of the functioning of the universe.
Both people can be stupid or brilliant, the only difference is that a scientist checks the results of his work not only by people who may like this work or not, but also by the universe itself, so many publications are not the publication of hypotheses, but a description of experiments to test or refute them. This is both easier and more difficult for artists. It is easier – no one will cut down your idea at the root as it does not correspond to the processes observed in the universe, and will not throw out the work of decades in the toilet (especially since he will not prove it himself and objectively), it is more difficult – people's opinions are fickle and the artist will not be able to be right in spite of opinions and will not be able to force you to accept your point of view because it is objectively better than the previous ones and promises any benefit, because there is nothing objective in the direction of his work, there are only very long-playing “eternal” themes and postulates inherent in a person by his nature.
In general, the difference between a scientist and an artist is the presence of an objective critic in the face of the universe, who stands above other consumers of his art. In this regard, artists can go anywhere and be judged only by their skills, strength and imagination, and scientists are forced to go all the way before them in order to continue it at those forks where their predecessors did not turn or did not reach, and the beginning of this road and branches into dead ends have already been trodden hundreds of times and you have to rely much more
The universe is the same. Perception is also fundamentally different. It should be noted that this is not about a specific artist or scientist, but about the worldview. And it should be understood that this abstract scientist or artist can be the same person only in different circumstances and moods.
The artist should be least interested in questions about specific knowledge that can be applied in everyday life or in the workplace. His universe is alive, he finds inspiration in the harmony of feelings and the fullness of life in all its manifestations. The scientist sees in the environment an extremely complex mechanism that must be disassembled by atom in order to classify, create a logical scheme and harness it to the cart.
Both the artist and the scientist are just people.
The scientist's universe and the artist's universe are not much different from each other. Both the artist and the scientist copy what has long been available. Neither reveals anything, and both copy the universe. And the copy has never been better than the original. with respect.
Now we are going through an interesting historical stage, when it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish scientific and technical research from an art project — a sign that a new, broader understanding of art and science is waiting for us.
Scientific and technical research today should be considered in a broader context than before: not just as conducting regular specialized technical experiments, but as cultural creativity and cultural utterance, which already implies elements of art.
Art and science are two great engines of culture: two sources of creativity, inspiration, and collective identity. Before the Renaissance, they were merged into a single whole. Philosophers had an equal right to talk about art and science, about truth and faith. In primitive societies, the philosopher, shaman, and artist were also most often the same person. Visual and performing arts were woven into the fabric of ritual and everyday life. As a rule, people who were gifted with special observation and wisdom, the ability to foresee the signs of heaven and earth, the weather, the fate of animals and plants, life and death, were engaged in adding up legends or carving idols.
The artist “enjoys” the beauty of the universe
The scientist “enjoys” the orderliness of the universe
each of them is “obsessed”in their own way
/I know for myself when I couldn't tear myself away from “Landau physics”/
The main thing here is that I then had an extra 10 pages of Landau-they were more interesting “than a neighbor-classmate “through the wall”.
I can draw well by hand… draw (artists will tell me to write) – I can't ((((- instead of drawing, I will get a “drawing”…
But I think that artists enjoy their work just as much as I do
I read somewhere the expression: “a scientist does not need to pay a salary – he just needs to provide ALL his requests for KNOWLEDGE”
PS from “artists” – I'm waiting for comments
The brain of a scientist must “decompose everything into atoms” and understand the relationships. The world must reveal its secrets and become intelligible. If there is something that is not clear-this is a great, joyful opportunity to conquer a new peak and admire a clearly arranged and decomposed puzzle that will neatly fit into its place in the overall picture.
The artist's brain does not require knowledge and disassembly to the cogs of what he sees. He enjoys the new and the opportunity to be surprised, and in the grayness and ordinariness of what he has already seen , adds new colors taken from the last “experience” and creates a new facet of the “kaleidoscope” through which he looks at the world.
The artist creates his own universes, and the main thing that defines them is not the laws of nature, but emotions and fantasy. The artist builds his universe in accordance with the idea that underlies his worldview, and these universes obey the logic of creativity, like Stanislavsky (?) He said, “I see it that way!” and that was it. The artist's task, then, is to make sure that the picture of his world corresponds to his task and that the admirers of his talent BELIEVE that he is right. The scientist's universe is limited by many conditions and rules, laws of nature, cliches and dogmas that are often erroneous, but the scientist must obey them, otherwise he will go to work as a janitor. His thinking is blinded by previous luminaries, and if he wants to live and work in his specialty, he will never go against the flow. We can say that the scientist's universe is already ready for use and laid out on the shelves. There is no freedom of creativity, no flight of fancy, no place for inspiration – everything is regulated and conditioned. A scientist cannot say that this is more correct, because it is harmonious and beautiful, and the theory of quantum physics is ugly and unpredictable, so it is wrong. Each word must be justified and proved by existing tools, theories, formulas, arguments and facts.
It seems to me that the difference is not so great, the only difference is in the final goal. In Tarkovsky's film Stalker, a scientist and a writer argue, and one claims that creativity is the main thing in our life, and science is only “crutches” that help in this great goal. The scientist claims that creativity is only an irritant, a subjective feeling, and the meaning of our life is science