Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
is this because Art is a field of human endeavor where the results are supposedly up for judging by anyone, regardless of their knowledge of art history, art movements, artists, symbolism, etc.?
only an idiot presumes to know how to judge scientific research without deep knowledge of the subject. In art, a purely personal judgement of "I like it," or "I don't like it," is given weight regardless of who says it.
|
I think that second statement is partially untrue. I read New Scientist and feel somehow qualified to talk about string theory. Doesn't mean I seriously understand it. It's that old adage (which I'll have to paraphrase) about 'if everyone only spoke on subjects they knew about, all across the world would be a profound silence'.
The point I was trying to make was that science
doesn't come up against the same popular friction that a lot of art does. Obviously, this is because the procedures of science are obscure to most, and also essential to the subject at hand, while the procedures of art are obscure but largely less essential.
I don't know. It's complicated. All I'm saying is that every fucker in the world has an opinion on artworks they largely haven't experienced, while scientists the world over are doing experiments on precisely fuck all.