Check out some similar questions!

Idrees · Aug 22, 2007, 12:02 AM

I've read many definitions of Art in different dictionaries. But none was satisfying enough. Once I brainstormed & with the blessings of God, definitions of Arts & Science came into my mind.

Can you (reader) give me some comments/feedback weather this definition of mine is right or not or weather it requires some improvement. This definition of mine was also published in a magazine of the company where I used to work.

Please visit this website to view my definition of Arts & Science and give me some feedback.

http://geocities.com/idrees.scientis.../ArtAndScience

Please give me some feedback

Wondergirl · Aug 22, 2007, 12:12 AM

I will go along with your definition.

I work in a public library. I catalog library materials. Cataloging is a science. Cataloging is also an art. (I will explain further if you like.)

I started and am in charge of the library volunteer corps. Finding the right library tasks for a volunteer is a science. Training the volunteer to do those tasks and convincing him/her that the tasks are very worthwhile to the community is an art.

I am a mother of two sons. Being a mother is a science. Being a mother is also an art.

P.S. "Weather" in the context in which you used it (twice) is spelled "whether". (Weather is what happens outside, like rain or snow.)

I am a good grammarian and speller. That is a science. It is also an art.

Clough · Aug 22, 2007, 02:06 AM

I do like the answer above and think that the subject of what art is as compared to science is so subjective as to render a definer as incapable of defining it since the topic is so subjective.

I do like the following that is from Art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

The above statement would seem to work equally for both art and science.

I did go to the link that you have provided. I like the things that you have written. I do see why you might be confused. I don't see why defining such a thing is an issue for you.

I also don't see why there should be any confusion on a topic that is based upon so much subjectivity. When it would seem that so much depends on what a person thinks when trying to define something about which there is so much subjectivity that is involved in the definition.

It would be helpful if you would let us know why defining such a thing/comparison/delineation is so important to you.

encyclopedia · Aug 22, 2007, 02:15 AM

Friend, I think your answers are very abstract in their very own nature.
Art is something that is unique to an individual, whereas science is something which can be developed by a systematic study and practice.

Lets take examples for each.
If a person is very good at drawing (or singing) it is an art. He can improvise it by practice, but it needs a basic skill to sing. Any ordinary man (take me as an example), even by lot of practice, cannot draw so neatly as this talented person.

On the other hand, if a person is not good at say time management, or fluency in certain language, he can ameliorate it by his diligence and practice. This is science. Science is a systematic study of something (anything).

Hope my answer sates you

Idrees · Nov 29, 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by encyclopedia

Friend, I think your answers are very abstract in their very own nature.
Art is something that is unique to an individual, whereas science is something which can be developed by a systematic study and practice.

Lets take examples for each.
If a person is very good at drawing (or singing) it is an art. He can improvise it by practice, but it needs a basic skill to sing. Any ordinary man (take me as an example), even by lot of practice, cannot draw so neatly as this talented person.

On the other hand, if a person is not good at say time management, or fluency in certain language, he can ameliorate it by his diligence and practice. this is science. Science is a systematic study of something (anything).

Hope my answer sates you

You said "science is something which can be developed by a systematic study and practice.. This isn't for Science only, Art can also be developed by a "systematic study and practice"

Clough · Dec 1, 2007, 12:16 AM

When I play the piano, or any other instrument for that matter or sing, that is an art. How I arrived at being able to play or sing the way that I do is through a systematic method of study and practice. It doesn't matter how talented the person is in order to use a systematic method of study and practice.

encyclopedia · Mar 10, 2008, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Clough

When I play the piano, or any other instrument for that matter or sing, that is an art. How I arrived at being able to play or sing the way that I do is through a systematic method of study and practice. It doesn't matter how talented the person is in order to use a systematic method of study and practice.

I would rather say that playing Piano is a science. Because it can be developed by a systematic study and practise. However, playing piano exceptionally well is an art. For doing this (playing piano excellently, one has to have a real good sense of music. An art is REFINED by science.
I would like to strengthen my argument with a couple of examples.
If you have talent in painting, by study and practice, you can only refine it. But some people (including me) even after going to painting schools, and learning all the brush strokes and all, are not able to paint a picture well. Here, painting is an art. You are just refining whatever skills you have with the help of a scientific approach.
If a person is good at singing, he/she can hone their skills by learning all the music notes and practicing. However, if he/she does not even have a good voice or a good melody, there is no point if he/she learns to sing. Practising again does not serve a purpose.

Clough · Mar 10, 2008, 03:30 AM

Everyone can learn to play, sing and to do things in the visual or recreational arts. We just aren't all born with a Stradivarius for an instrument in order to accomplish these things. Science, music and math, they are all intertwined as far as the arts are concerned. I see no need for an argument here.

Idrees · Dec 30, 2008, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Clough

It would be helpful if you would let us know why defining such a thing/comparison/delineation is so important to you.

You asked me why defining art it is so much important to me. I used to be a very imaginative person. Once I kept on thinking and found this definition. I want to do something new in this world. I want to be creative. But the fact is that I am a faileur. I failed in many offices and nowadays I am working in an office which is not relavent to my field. I wanted to be scientist/mechanical engineer, but my numbers were very low so that I could not get enrolled in university to study this subject. What else should I do then. I want to write a book on this subject i.e. Arts and Science. I want everyone in this world to buy this book. Now tell me what should I do now.