RE: Histology as a science or an art.?

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From:"Weems, Joyce" <>
To:"''" <>, "'Barry Rittman'" <>
Date:Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:14:31 -0400
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

You know, this is such an interesting discussion. One of the things I
love the most about Histology is the fact that I can combine art with
science. Isn't is good that we are all unique and can look at things
from so many perspectives?!!! j:>)

>From: 	Barry Rittman[]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, April 13, 1999 2:19 PM
>Subject: 	Re: Histology as a science or an art.?
>        suspect that you have been sampling the local brew or have been
>exposed to too much  rugby (incidently, I am not sure if you regard rugby
>as a science or art!).
>There is of course art in science and science in art. Although you say
>that you do not necessarily need training to enjoy or perform art this is
>usually not true for most individuals. There are of course born singers
>etc.but for the vast majority of us there are progressive levels of
>understanding up to which we can be raised by a more knowledgeable
>individual be they artist or scientist or both.  As someone pointed out
>earlier, art and science are inextricably interwoven. I think that if you
>examine the lives of most of the famous scientists you will see that they
>usually had as much interest in art as in the science for which they were
>famous and in some instances it was chance that they ended up in science.
>You just have to look at Leonardo's anatomic drawings and his decriptions
>to appreciate both the art and the science. While science may be held up
>as a more logical discipline, art often distills the essence of subjects
>and may be used to provide a simpler concept to grasp. Picasso's dove for
>example, has 5 or 6 lines to it and while not a photographic
>representation of the dove it provides the grace and spirit of the dove.
>In many instances science is so tied with minutia that it loses sight of
>the broad picture. Art may bring us back to reality.  I  can remember many
>instances where scientific problems have been solved by a non-scientist
>(such as an artist) looking at a photograph with a fresh perspective.
>You live in a beautiful part of the UK, get outside, appreciate the
>natural art that is there and ignore Darwin for a moment.
>> Cannot agree with art and science being the same! Three main reasons:
>> 1You do not necessarily need any educating or training in the subject
>> to enjoy, or even perform, art.  Singers are born with a gift, just
>> like ball-players.  so are those who can draw.  Sure most of us can
>> do a bit with tuition and training.
>> 2 People in arts and science can discuss arts with equal intellect and
>> knowledge.  Arts people cannot discuss science without specialist
>> knowledge (and, probably, training)
>> 3 Science is like an ever expanding pyramid.  It is all built on
>> knowledge that has been established before (and that really means
>> established, not guessed or opined).  The essence of science is to try
>> and disprove a hypothesis or theory.  Art is like it or not.
>> Two different things - reality and abstract, fact and figmentation
>> There speaks a self-opinionated scientist (I hope!)
>> ps, I like art.
>> pps I love science
>> Russ Allison, Wales

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>