What is more important, art or science?

I don't have a deep interest in either, but science is invaluable. Art is nice if you like that kind of thing.

 

I can't decide, confuzzled.
I'd say art, I love art because I can express myself easier through it and I already struggle expressing myself in public.
But then with science, you learn cool stuff, and it may come in handy some time, I'm going to have physics next year, can't wait.

So it's a tie, I can't choose between them

 

Both. Sure science has helped humanity in so many ways...but what's the point of it if you can't use it to appreciate and create beauty?

 

They both have their pros and cons, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that has one but not the other.

Science seems like the obvious choice- it helps us understand the world better and it's interesting finding out about things like DNA and how animals interact with each other. It's usually more black and white, but there is room for speculation on new theories if they need more research to form a basis on the matter.

However you do have issues like people exaggerating facts and what not but still.

If art was in a sort of family of subjects, it'd certainly be the more misunderstood loner who gets blamed for being lazy a lot. It's a lot less black and white, and people can interpret art in anyway they like- especially if it's vague. Which can get annoying because people can come up with all sorts of nonsense and still be considered correct. However, I do think that it is important to a degree. It can be a good way of sorting through your feelings (and perhaps try to prove a point via a moral of a story or subtext) and perhaps help you communicate better with others- think of people who might use puppets and such to communicate to others due to shyness and perhaps low self confidence (think of George from Arthur). It also makes the world a lot more interesting.

Take a step back and imagine a world where creativity and imagination doesn't exist. Think of all the inventions of the world that exist today just because someone drew a rather seemingly insignificant idea- perhaps even on a plain old dirty napkin even and then made it a reality.

If it wasn't for some inspiration and creativity then we wouldn't have benefited from some pretty brilliant inventions.

However, with creativity and a certain social know-how people can use this to manipulate others by well thought out lies.

It's usually best when you combine the two, or get one person come up with the idea and the other thinks about it logically and edits it down till they get something achievable.

I've heard it said that people are usually one or the other, as drawing something "scientifically" makes it automatically ugly and you have to learn what to leave out/ make stand out to make it aesthetically pleasing. I even hear it's a dangerous combination- and that I should be worried if I'm both. Not sure how much truth there is to this.

But honestly, I find the ones who have both to be the most intriguing (and potentially dangerous, not to be messed with :lol: especially if they're a mad scientist). So I'd say both are important, but science is more important.

 

Science is probably more important because it provides us with many benefits and innovations. But I LOVE art that is made from science.

 

Penicillin

 

This isn't a debate. Science is the reason most of us are still alive. It's the greatest thing about the human race and is the key to our salvation.

Don't get me wrong art is nice. But it's never fed or healed anyone.

 

Science the reason for everything

 

Perhaps people have chosen a career field that feeds or heals people because of artistic depictions of it. I've got a friend who plans to study microbiology after having read about ebola in The Hot Zone. Not all art is good, but that which is may heavily influence society.

And as for science being the reason for everything, not so much. My layman's speculation is that cave paintings evolved into written language, which allowed the easy transmission of information. So if this is even remotely true, art had a hand in bringing about all civilization.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have a love and admiration for science that goes all the way to the bone. But art is not science's hippie younger brother.

 

I'm not sure I accept the dichotomy. Obviously science is more "important" from a standpoint of economic development. However, areas that are suffering economically tend not to have much of either.

 

I think this is sort of a false dichotomy. Both have different levels of importance in different situations and cannot be directly compared using empirical methods.

 

I think we can conclude this thread

And thinking about it humans made art before they made actual "science. Cave paintings.