 |
There are two brilliantly beautiful ways to observe everything, through science and through art.
Science is how we figure out what's up. That's it. When confronted with a thing, any thing, science is the process we've developed to get as close to an explanation of that thing as we can. And the way we approach that perfect explanation is by doubting, by coming up with hypotheses and brutally scrutinizing our own conclusions, making sure they're tough. Of course the closer we get to an explanation the more questions arise. And that's the beautiful thing. Always there are more exciting opportunities to use science, to observe and explore and discover!
Art is how we react to the thing observed, more to the point, it's a symbolic expression of our reaction to the thing. We feel something we have trouble putting into words so we create a painting, a sculpture, a song. We want to shout it from the mountaintops.
Many people think these two realms are mutually exclusive, that when you explain something scientifically it loses its beauty. What a load of crap. We give each other flowers because they're pretty. We've even assigned meanings to them, carnations for friendship, roses for love etc. Has any of that romance attached to flowers diminished because we understand how flowers reproduce and feed and grow? No! In fact it's heightened by our expanded knowledge. Look at kids in the science classroom, when they see carnations change color because they sit in dyed water. Kids are fascinated. Why, because they have the aesthetic reaction to the color change combined with the excitement of understanding how it happens. Science and art work together to foster learning and the wonder of the world around us.
I was a terrible student in school. I did well in music and lousy in everything else. But on some level I've always loved science. I read a little sci-fi but never got into reading science magazines until a few years ago when I realized I was a skeptic and discovered the easy marriage between science and skepticism. As an adult I have some regret about not getting into science more as a kid. If only some teacher had recognized that spark and nudged me in a certain direction. If only my parents had gotten more involved in my education, maybe I'd be an astronaut now. (That's it, I blame the public schools and my parents.)
As these new aspects of my life grew (skepticism and the love of science), I suffered minor disappointments in the realization that the religious ideas I grew up with (and the new ones I explored) were bunk. But those petty annoyances were far outweighed by the grandeur of our awe inspiring planet and it's tiny, insignificant place in our grand, awe inspiring cosmos. My love for my girlfriend and my mother were not diminished as I learned about hormones and brain activity. In fact I was made to feel more special by the fact that we humans have developed the ability to love through evolution. My wonder at the beauty of the stars is for more profound to me now as I realized I'm gazing millions of light year into the distance and so millions of years into the past than it was when I thought of them as the little nightlights that god tossed up into the sky for our amusement. It's this awe, this real awe, that inspires songs and plays to be written.
And on the negative side, there are things like war and disease. They are no more or less heinous when we understand their socio-political and biological causes. Well, maybe less heinous when you let go of the idea that they're god's fault. Because when we stop blaming war on god (or giving him credit for it, whichever way you look at it) we can work on diplomacy and try to get along. When we stop blaming polio on god we can get on with developing a cure. Then we have tragic plays and songs to write as well as songs of hope to get us through the tough times. The gospel singers don't sound so great because they're religious. They sound great because their music comes out of great oppression and expresses hope.
An example of artistic expression that cannot be divorced from prosaic examination is the presentation of Shakespeare's plays. As an actor one cannot perform one of these plays without first analyzing the language and figuring out what the heck all of the old words and turns of phrase mean. You have to go through all the analysis and etymology before you can express what the Bard wrote. Otherwise you'll be standing on stage saying a bunch of words you don't understand. You might as well be saying, "To blah or not to blah blah, that is the question."
That's my world view. I'm a musician/actor/doodler who later fell in love with science. So it's back and forth, what's it all about - how do I feel about it, inspiration - knowledge, muse - gnosis.
12:14 AM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|