• aylon
    1
    Outlook:

    Art is a human activity that has displayed through time some kind of canonical form, so as to suggest the terminology of an art movement. This property is not only true for the field of Science, but the scientific movements are likewise motivated with their synchronous art movements.

    This suggests that the notion of a movement (i.e. the phenomenon of similarity between work products, which as claimed extends so as to collect artists with scientists), should originate from some common life experience that they both have. That should be political and cultural framework.

    So if civilizations or city vibes homogenize creators, and homogeneous creations lead to movements, then surrealism, realism, romanticism, etc, are for west civilization what Mona Lisa is for Leonardo da Vinci, what Guernica is for Picasso, etc.

    "movements are the way that cities express themselves"

    Inlook:

    Renaissance(17-18th century)
    Science progress was driven by the figures of Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, and others less popular. That work was around Calculus and Analytic Geometry, which both of them where in direct connection with Newtonian Physics.
    Art progress was around truth likeness. Refinement techniques (using oil for the first time in West), realistic human proportions and the use of perspective.(Note: Italians were an exception, containing sometimes non-realistic elements, still without violating analogy and refinement. Like The Birth of Venus by Botticelli.)
    Renaissance and Enlightenment was seated on realism.

    Surrealism period(end of 19th beginning of 20th)
    Scientific surrealism is based on the idea of not allowing senses to restrict scientific work. Such examples are Non Euclidean Geometry and Freud's Psychoanalysis.
    Sur-logical and sur-realistic scenes where depicted in art around that years.

    Self-reference period(aroused in World War I)
    Mathematics turned onto logic(Russel) and Philosophy onto language(Wittgenstein).
    In art the most known painter of that kind is Rene Magritte.

    ~~~
    I would like your opinion on the above.
  • Jake Tarragon
    342
    Some of the parallelism is based on conscious copying of science by art - e.g Picasso's "discovery" of cubism was, I believe, a deliberate take on relativity. I think there are other examples throughout art "development" - e.g. Freud (even though he was not an actual scientist, his ideas were highly influential to justifying some artists' work).

    So how "natural" is the canonical form of art?

    And that very question must be asked of scientific development too, I guess...
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    I agree that artists and scientists are a product of their times, just as much as we are products of our time. But while science progresses, the arts movement is dialectical.

    I disagree with your dating of the Renaissance. I think it started at the end of 15th century around the time of Copernicus say 1500, and was over by the end of the 17th century.. Michelangelo's Mythic Monumentalism melted away into Caravaggio's scientific realism.

    Surrealism developed out of DaDa, the only scientific analogue I can poke fun at is "Dark Matter"...ha,ha.

    Not sure on the science, but I think Du Champ was the 1st (?) self referential artist...'It is art, because I say it is art.' Of course he was right, but...

    ps. welcome to TPF!
  • Noble Dust
    3.2k
    Some of the parallelism is based on conscious copying of science by art - e.g Picasso's "discovery" of cubism was, I believe, a deliberate take on relativity.Jake Tarragon

    Did he say this somewhere? Sometimes artists do deliberately make a "take" on something happening in science or politics or whatever, but it's impossible to really say how much this happens, and so the corollary is that we have to assume that, just as often as not, any parallelism isn't necessarily deliberate or completely a conscious decision. You have to understand how artists work here; they don't work like scientists or philosophers. An artist develops an artistic voice over their entire lifetime, and that voice is a product of so many diffuse factors. Mondrian evolved to the point of favoring the simplicity of three colors, and only lines and right angles. This was a long process of development that was concurrent with the development of his own aesthetic philosophy and his own general philosophy. He was influenced by science and tech, but he also influenced science and tech, specifically graphic design. It's an example of the diffuse nature of the relationship.
  • Jake Tarragon
    342
    Did he say this somewhere?Noble Dust

    I thought I read it somewhere :)
  • Noble Dust
    3.2k
    Not sure on the science, but I think Du Champ was the 1st (?) self referential artist...'It is art, because I say it is art.' Of course he was right, but...Cavacava

    Yeah, Magritte seems to fall more into the category of surrealism.
  • Noble Dust
    3.2k


    Btw, welcome to the forum, and good observations here.

    Some thoughts:

    So if civilizations or city vibes homogenize creators, and homogeneous creations lead to movements, then surrealism, realism, romanticism, etc, are for west civilization what Mona Lisa is for Leonardo da Vinci, what Guernica is for Picasso, etc.aylon

    I'm unclear on what you mean here, I think it's just the wording.

    "movements are the way that cities express themselves"aylon

    A note to your point is that cities as cultural centers are generally what create the ferment in which ideas and movements are made. Science, art, etc. This points to how the relationship between those disciplines is complex and interwoven.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    In my opinion Picasso's Cubism was more his reaction to Cezanne's art works.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment