Hi Sup Forumsros

Hi Sup Forumsros
What do you think is more important (for you at least), a world without science or a world without art (at all) ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8RM1oTw6fPg),
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Y'all niggas better answer

A world without art.
Though it’s hard to work without aesthetic or any form expression, Science shows a different type of art such as discovering, seeing how things are formed, and etc.

Do i have to post porn to get y'all faggots attention

Yeah you have a point

Samefagging

Neither of those are important for me because I like both art and science

So I'd settle for a world without retarded question formation

World without art, so easy. Modern art is shit, it cant even suppory itself without government handouts.

And we actually need science to make our lives better.

science is MUCH more important than art

that's how you got your cars and water treatment and electricity and agricultural techniques.

I mean art is neat, but it's hardly essential for survival. get your priorities straight, OP

it's like asking what is more important, water or air...

You can't have a world without science and you can't have a world without art, you'll never know what kind of dreams people of all walks of the world will have that will almost most likely lead to art or science.

People consider everything art cuz it kind of is.

People consider everything science cuz it kind of is.

The word that art and science is, is curiosity, which humanity made it's entire legacy from.

All walks of life are connected to curiosity wether incredibly small and inconsiderate to incredibly massive and insurmountable.

From Mozarts curiosity and prodigious talent to have written symphonies since the age of 7, To Albert einsteins curiosity being a bad student who dropped out who merely stumbled on his E=MC^2 equation.

There's a science to mozarts prodigy, and there's an art to Einsteins guess and incredibly mathematical proficiency

They're one and the same, it's curiosity and you can't humanity without it.

art is for fagets

Fuck you fag.

your description fits to everything that is not related to survival ... so? computer gaming, gambling, sport, parties...

"As far as I know, the first suggestion in the scientific literature about terraforming the planets was made in a 1961 article I wrote about Venus. [...] The idea was soon taken up by a number of science fiction authors in the continuing dance between science and science fiction - in which the science stimulates the fiction, and the fiction stimulates a new generation of scientists, a process benefiting both genres."

They both need each other. Art using science to make its pigments and other crap

Science needs art because research is like 90% science and 10% arts and crafts. Getting data isn't hard, getting data that is pretty enough to publish can be

Art and science are both important. For the ones who dont want to further their knowledge, they can be creative with art. However, we can definitely do much better in a world without god, ohh wait, he doesnt exist

A world without science I'm tired of liberals thinking they can predict the weather not knowing it comes in cycles, that's not how we will maga

Without art there's no expression of self, no music, no movies, no netflix, no youtube, no star wars/trek or whatever your gay ass is into, no D&D, no computer games, no porn, no need since we're all into exploring data and science, i believe it would be like an incredible utopian society.

Everyone would be bland and very expressionless, like humanity were all inflicted with sociopath tendencies, and we'd be very stoic about reproduction, most likely there would be artificial insemination or a cloning process, we'd be like worker bees.


It would be amazing for the earth, but there wouldn't be any humanity at all, just human drones.

Your going to hell for denying god

Are you retarded?

No, are you?

Probably a world without science, what's the point of becoming a super advanced species if we don't have any forms of art, art is what makes us human, we'd just be empty shells

In a world without science we might not be technologically advanced but as a result we'd put more emphasis on art and be super enlightened and content in a way

You might want to get tested for autism. Your logic is retarded

science is art, just not for soy boys

Water.

what does a soyboy even mean?

>guise I said autism
Kek, have you ever poured or ran an SDS-PAGE? Ever done a western transfer or ECL stain? Have you ever made figures for a scientific publication? running these experiments can be just as much as an art form as the science behind it.

There would probably be no water without air and vice versa your public school system has failed you.

I'm an artist, a shit one at that.

Also I dropped out of school ya dog cunt.

Water existed on our planet before our current oxygen rich atmosphere

Removing art doesn't mean removing feelings, art getting removed wouldn't be what caused the situation in Orwell's 1984

Einstein didn't fail math you fucking moron.
>believing every dumb paradox cuz it makes a good narrative

In terms of op the two are not mutually exclusive, Da Vinci greatly advanced both science and art. Newton was also a painter. Early biologists basically HAD to be artists to accurately convey their findings

Art and science intertwine with eachother.
The geometry of the universe is an art beyond our perception.

Art is already dead. All we have are remnants from the past.

DUNT FUCKIN TELL HIM THAT!

KEEP SPECIAL MAGIC KHAZAR SECRETS AMONG KHAZARS!

This is how people started finding out the Earth is a flat plane.

>To Albert einsteins curiosity being a bad student who dropped out who merely stumbled on his E=MC^2 equation.
He wasn't a bad student and didn't "stumble" upon e=mc2, that shit took long hours of work and thinking.

Most of those aren't art. The corporate, politicized shit that's been squeezed out over the past decade most certain isn't art.

>guise I don't know the difference between fine art and commercial art

World without art.

Frankly most of it, especially today, is a bunch of self-congratulatory pseudo-expression that only gets created to attract attention. From stupid shit like Jackson Pollack to the dipshit who did Piss Christ to pretty much any Performance Art piece My favorite was the woman who put spaghetti-o's up her cunt: youtube.com/watch?v=8RM1oTw6fPg), it's just a bunch of narcissistic wannabe elitist douchebags from both the artist and aficionado side.

Even Che Guevara (the t-shirt monkey that every hipster artist crows about) hated artists and thought they were pointless and self-serving.

Science is the understanding of the world. Art is supposed to be the understanding of the self, but it rarely is.

We did that electrophoresis in biology II. I've also had a short paper published in IEEE. I was being sincere when I said you might want to get checked. You have bad logic and you think minor feats are more impressive than they are. I'm telling you dude, you're probably autistic.

A world without art.

A world without science is a world where half your brothers and sisters die painful terrible painful deaths from horrific illnesses we as a society have all but forgotten about before the age of 12 much to your mothers chagrin, and if you make it youll still probably get cholera or typhoid and die your ass off.

Not a fair trade for a cd. And im a musician

You are a moron. In that case all of the famous art of history isn't art either. Most of them were created for Patrons... You know what that is right? I'll dumb it down for you patrons were nobles with money, ie politicized Shit with medieval corporations

So you published the you should understand the amount of art it takes to set up a manuscript...unless you weren't a first or second author and just had your name attached to the paper
So when I was creating models for the protein structure I work with, I wasn't using any art skills to pick colors to focus of specific parts of my protein or positioning my protein? I wasn't don't any graphic design skills when laying out where figures went and how they are displayed my publications was I?

I disagree, art is expression of self, without expression of self, what do you think that means?

I'm using my imagination of course, but i think that's what would've happened, no cavemen drawings, no need to believe in fire god, little use to our imagination, just curiosity in proficiency and effectiveness. We'd be hard wired to work like worker bees with one or multiple tasks for everyone, kill the mammoth to eat, build a hut to sleep, make fire, protect child, bury father.

It would advance like that in proficiency, i think we'd find other humans, build the railroads, work together to manufacture together, eventually stumble unto science, we'd all be proficient.

I think it would be like the emotional intelligence, or emotional parts of our brains wouldn't be there.

But then again, this can't be because we need fear and pleasure in order to surpass our cavemen days.


Oh i just meant that he stumbled unto his Equation E=MC2 by claiming its legitamacy, i didn't mean to say he sucked at math, he was an amazing mathematician but this is true, he did stumble on it by accident with little to no proof eventually alot of people saw that his equation made sense and elaborated on it.

Just merely trying to cite the similarities in curiosity.

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is. You think I said "you're wrong". What I actually said is "are you retarded?". You can be retarded and be right. However, in this case, you're retarded and you're wrong. And you're confusing imagination with art. All advances in science require imagination. It doesn't make it art.

I don't know the exact history of the development of the theory of special and then general relativity. I apologize for assuming you were talking about a wide spread rumor as fact, but in my defense this is Sup Forums

>Bouguereau Waifu.

Doesn't really roll off the tongue.

You are the retard here,explain to me how i was not using the elements/principals of art (color, shape, form, space, emphasis, portion, graduation, variety, movement, etc) when making figures for my publications, especially when creating models for proteins?

Protip: It takes art

Neither. These go hand in hand as the only two things that make life worth living.

Science would eventually prove that art is necessary.

From another point of view the anti-science men of this world are also anti-art. Namely the religious people and especially the muslims.

Art is a science .

I find it ironic that this thread of art vs science has developed into basically a philosophy discuss, the most science the traditional arts has to offer.

And Science is Art.

>guise muslims are anti science, thats why they developed medicine, mathematics and other sciences during early human history.

What elements/principles of art does it take to read a poem backwards and then shove alphabet spaghettios up your cunt?

>the two most creative uses of higher thought
People who have no capacity for one have little capacity for the other.

No...that's pattern matching.

You start off with a decent argument then devolve into bigotry
>face palm

Yep.

Good thing there's never any of that going on in art

nice argument

the funny thing is with the modern art movement, recording yourself reading a poem backwards and then shoving alphabet spaghettios up your cunt can be considered art. Some bitch dropped eggs from her vagina on to canvas for a preformance art in front of an art museum for her "art."

That's not art. That's decorating. If your definition of art is so broad then using a fancy font when you type is art - or something else just as stupid, ridiculous and basic

oh, so graphic art is not art now? Not saying its a fine art but is a commercial art form and thus an art form

thing is, belittling her art is exactly what we're doing with the concept of art in general. The original question was basically posited as "science or art. one is more important. pick one"

The argument comes down to human advancement or human enrichment. The argument being we need science to survive, but what's the point of surviving if there's no art/emotion/expression/etc.

The thing is science (often) has a method of getting rid of the junk/bullshit part. Although a few elements like the "What The Bleep Do We Know?" new age bullshit artists take concepts from physics and try to use it to sell their books. Eventually that ends up in shows like Fringe and everyone is worse off for the experience. But for the most part, there is an effort to get rid off junk science and call bullshit on people.

But in art, the "everyone deserves a voice" rhetoric kicks in, as does "some consider pompous expression is another mans high art" type of shit. So at least in science, bad science able to be called out because something is either true or it isn't, and can (at least eventually) be proven. With art, that's impossible. So you have true artists who paint something that really moves and inspires, and then you have the attention whores who shove alphabetty spaghetti up their cunts, if the true artists would only call bullshit on them, the world would be a better place.

oh, also, everyone in that performance piece including the audience should have been rounded up and thrown into an industrial shredder as an example to never be like them.

That's my art. I call it "the betterment of society"

I couldn't agree more with pic related.

>So you have true artists who paint something that really moves and inspires
what inspires/moves me is not the same as what inspires/moves you. Personally Id rather see contemporary or modern art over Renaissance. Yes it takes lots of skill to paint someone or a place realistically but that requires no imagination.

This argument beyond all others shows why if we had to get rid of one, art should be the one to go. It's in the eye of the beholder. There's no standards as to whether or not its good or just narcissistic attention seeking. So given the choice, it's best to nix art.

>Art using science to make its pigments
>Science needs art because research is like 90% science and 10% arts
I think he may be

And art is one of the few disciplines that repetition and dedication (aka skills) mean nothing. I tried for years to become a good artist and can not do anything better, for example my "human" looks no better than something from Gang Beasts. You meant talent not skill moron

>guise art doesnt use chemistry to make paint
>guise science does not use graphic design to when preparing publications or making figures in publications
kek, think before you speak

>I tried for years to become a good artist and can not do anything better
anecdotal evidence

If I took enough time I could find many more with similar experiences.
>tfw anecdotal evidence becomes theory

>If I took enough time I could find many more with similar experiences.
but you wouldnt because it takes effort and if it becomes difficult youd give up? Like learning a new skill?

Science and art exist within each other,
Science is an art.
Art is a science.

...even war can have an artistic aspect.

Science and art are ways of thinking,as well as an action... they do not automatically equivocate each other can occur without actually physical experiments.

heART. art comes from emotion, and worms its way into your brain, and thusly your life and actions, science come from the brain... works its way into something you love, and gives you heart worm......i mean, warms your heart.

Convergances like Introverts being also extroverts, and I, having as much passion, as i lack motivation.
When a conundrum is observed as valid, the existence of more is guaranteed... hence Science v Religion/ Bible v Darwin.

Did you have a smoking jacket on and a snifter of brandy in one hand while you typed this?

I watched at least an hour, up to 4 on some to more of the days later, of art theory and practice videos a day for 11 months and could do no better, unless I was directly copying; which I was pretty decent to begin with, is that giving up because it takes effort? No that is talent fucktard. And I have no question that I could find enough similar experiences that it could be considered a theory. And I'm sure there are others with similar stories in other artistic aspects to corroborate it. Talent is not skill and to be really good at a skill you need some talent.
Fuck off retard

so you couldnt do any better unless you copied something to directly which allowed you to "measure" your skill/talent? So you admit you got better but never took time to find your artistic voice? Do you think Dali, saved and sold every painting he ever made? When making art not everything you make is a masterpiece. It takes years, even a lifetime, for most artists to find their voices. The works you see in books and museums are just the highlight reels. Sorry you did not spend long enough time to become one of the masters. Im sure Dali, Monet, Picasso, Basquit, Da Vinci, or what ever artist who spent their lifetime mastering their crafts (most werent even super successful in their lifetimes) will sympathize with you in the after life (in you believe in that sorta thing)