Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Is it something particular to the nature of art that you wouldn't ever say 'well, it's not really astronomy, is it?'
|
i've heard that said of SETI.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
I tend to feel that, while there's clearly a lot of fraudhattery in the (visual, gallery-based) art world, I can't think of another field which comes under so much scrutiny by people who largely don't actually care. By which I mean, I almost never read any articles complaining that the LHC (or whatever) are a fatuous and superfluous use of money (it probably isn't, I neither know nor care) but people seem to think that galleries they haven't visited are fair game for accusations of emperor's new clothes.
Which isn't to say I don't sympathise with your opinion I just... well, it's odd is all.
|
as for the LHC, science geeks make all kinds of fun of that shit...
but since science geekery is far more of a closed system than art geekery, it's self-questioning is less visible... and as you pointed out, nobody else cares enough to pose the question.
but didn't the controversy caused by Alan Sokal's quantum gravity hoax essentially revolve around the question "is that really physics?"?
(i'm assuming that asking a question about a question requires two question marks, but i'm open to suggestions on that...)
that said... it does get asked far more often of art.