What is better at explaining life, Art or Science?

Answer 1

I would say art, but only because I reckon science and art as components of the same continuum. You can learn the science of painting, writing, sculpture, etc, and everyone has to learn technique to go with talent. The areas of study generally known as science move in the same direction, first you study the basics, and some people are particularly talented. Hence at its basic level all art and science is really science.

At the upper end of the continuum you reach art; this goes for every area of study or endeavor. You can be a great artist carving a chair, formulating the theory of relativity or composing an immortal opera. It is the point when science is transcended by more than the sum of study and technique. It doesn't necessarily have to be original or a break with all things past, but there is a quantum step between mere science and true art.

The reason why art is so dismal today, especially sculpture and painting, is because they have forgotten that art doesn't spring full-grown from the skull like Athena. It's not separated from the rest of the world like a Tibetan monastery. It's not the quintessence, but instead just the essence of each particular field of endeavor.

I count Newton and Einstein as great artists as well as great scientists, and it wasn't so long ago that the two fields walked hand-in-hand. Look at Leonardo da Vinci among others.

This is also the reason science is also so dismal today, because so many scientists are so caught up in the minutiae that they miss the big picture, and never reach the level of art. CS Lewis used the image of a giant with invisible skin to represent this view in 'Pilgrim's Regress.' The fact is our bodies are far more than the sum of their parts, and enumerating the parts increases understanding at a slow pace, but then that is science--trial and error and slow accumulation of data. A single artist transforms the data into understanding, and hence is far better at explaining life than a million plodders.

Answer 2

Science is better at explaining the body which is the vessel for life, but art is much better at describing life. I say this because what makes up life is largely emotions, and art seems to do a much better job at showing the emotions people experience and stirring up emotions within people.

Answer 3

There is no theory that can define life. You cannot make and test a hypothesis and come up with a reasonable theory that defines life for every person. Science is exact, predictable, and changes constantly. Once art is on paper, sculpted into marble, or what have you it is up there forever. Such is life. Once something is said, you cannot change it. Once something is done it has an impact on your life and the entire earth as is art. Once it is up there it changes the entire piece forever.

Answer 4

Explaining? They are both interpretations rather than explanations. Science is continually rearranging it's views and art is a compendium of viewpoints.

Answer 5

Life is suffering, Art is creative, and Science is logic.

Answer 6

Art describes it metaphysically, according to the artists' percepts and concepts. Science describes it epistemologically. Take your pick.

Answer 7

i could say that faith, performs a huge area of what emotions all of us have, because of the fact if the Almighty God, had no longer given us emotions interior of us then, we would be like Robots, and does not have any emotions interior of us. so, faith could attempt to describe approximately Love, while you evaluate that's written in the Scriptures. So, technology does not have any area in what we sense. I do think of that regularly technology, could have the certainty to let us know what are the emotions that we are having are, yet different than for that they are no longer God. good Morning to you too, Enki.

Answer 8

Each describes a different half of the same whole.