I don't see why not. Certain experiments could be said to be an artform, such as using sophisticated devices to see detect the wave function collapse.

It's not as if there is something called "art" which only applies to certain works of arts, or specific artists.

Certain experiments could be said to be an artform, such as using sophisticated devices to see detect the wave function collapse. — Manuel

I don’t think that’s what Feyerabend intended with his linkage of science and science. I think it was closer to Kuhn’s purpose in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , which was to change the image of science by bringing it closer to the image of art.

“The most persuasive case for the concept of cumulativeness is made by the familiar contrast between the development of science and that of art. Both disciplines display continuity of historical development –
neither could have reached its present state without its past – yet the relation of present to past in these two fields is clearly distinct.
Einstein or Heisenberg could, we feel sure, have persuaded Newton that twentieth-century science has surpassed the science of the seventeenth century, but we anticipate no remotely similar conclusion from a debate between, say, Rembrandt and Picasso.
In the arts successive developmental stages are autonomous and self-complete: no obvious external standard is available for comparisons between them.

The creative idiom of a Rembrandt, Bach, or Shakespeare resolves all its aesthetic problems and prohibits the consideration of others. Fundamentally new modes of aesthetic expression emerge only in intimate conjunction with a new perception of the aesthetic problem that the new modes must aim to resolve. Except in the realm of technique, the transition between one stage of artistic development and the next is a transition between incommensurables. In science, on the other hand, problems seem to be set by nature and in advance, without reference to the idiom or taste of the scientific community. Apparently, therefore, successive stages of scientific development can be evaluated as successively better approximations to a full solution. That is why the present state of science always seems to embrace its past stages as parts, which is what the concept of cumulativeness means. Guided by that concept, we see in the development of science no equivalents for the total shift of artistic vision – the shift from one integrated set of problems, images, techniques, and tastes to another.”

Kuhn disagrees with this cumulate e model of science:

If we are to preserve any part of the metaphor which makes inventions and discoveries new bricks for the scientific edifice, and if we are simultaneously to give resistance and controversy an essential place in the development of science, then we may have to recognize that the addition of new bricks demands at least partial demolition of the existing structure, and that the new edifice erected to include the new brick is not just the old one plus, but a new building. We may, that is, be forced to recognize that new discoveries and new theories do not simply add to the stock of pre-existing scientific knowledge. They change it. (Kuhn M2, p. 7)19

Often a decision to embrace a new theory turns out to involve an implicit redefinition of the corresponding science. Old problems may be relegated to another science or may be declared entirely “unscientific.” Problems that, on the old theory, were non-existent
or trivial may, with a new theory, become the very archetypes of significant scientific achievement. And, as the problems change, so, often, does the standard that distinguishes a real scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation, word game, or mathematical play. It follows that, to a significant extent, the science that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible, but often actually incommensurable, with that which has gone before. Only as this is realized, can we grasp the full sense in which scientific revolutions are like those in the arts. (Kuhn M1, pp. 17)

I don't necessarily see problem. Very often, when a physicist or a mathematician finds a solution to a problem, they describe it as "elegant". And what seems art to someone, may not look like art to someone else, which is common.

Of course science and art are different human activities, but human activities shouldn't be forced into one descriptive scheme alone. One can say that a cook has that dish "down to a science". Doesn't mean cooking is physics, but the way the cook does the plate is extremely precise and unique.

Also, physics, which is the "deepest science" we have, is described in equations, which very few people understand. To an ordinary person, a physics equation may look like random scribbles on a page. Not so to those who understand it.

From here, I think each person may take whatever views they have about art and science and argue one way or the other. I don't see a necessary conflict - while admitting they are different activities.

But, to Kuhn’s point, do you see the enterprise of natural science as a cumulative development ?

How do you react to Rorty’ observation?

“Most of Kuhn’s readers were prepared to admit that there were areas of culture—e.g., art and politics—in which vocabularies, discourses, Foucaultian epistémés replaced one another, and to grant that, in these areas, there was no overarching metavocabulary into which every such vocabulary might be translated. But the suggestion that this was true of the natural sciences as well was found offensive. Critics of Kuhn such as Scheffler and Newton-Smith thought of Kuhn as casting doubt on “the rationality of science.” They sympathized with Lakatos’ description of Kuhn as having reduced science to “mob psychology.”
(Rorty 1991, p. 47)

Aboriginal art shows an objective view on Nature. — Prishon

I'm not seeing it...

Do you know of a copy of Feyerabend's essay on line?

I don't have many problems with it.

I do think the phrase "scientific revolution" or specifically his "paradigm shift" (not mentioned in these quotes) to be way overused.

But aside from that, what he's saying looks fine to me.

I don't see why not. Certain experiments could be said to be an artform, such as using sophisticated devices to see detect the wave function collapse. — Manuel

:up: :100:

I'm not seeing it... — Banno

Me neither! But thats because I use my phone. You dont see it because you are no Aboriginal. I dont think the booklet is online.

I suggest that such a general claim: "Aboriginal art shows an objective view on Nature" - is mere appropriation, an attempt to contain a culture within Western critique. If someone were to say that all Dutch art is objective, would you take their view seriously? Of course not; art doesn't like being tidied into boxes.

I dont think the booklet is online. — Prishon

There doesn't even seem to be a translation. There's an opportunity!

It follows that, to a significant extent, the science that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible, but often actually incommensurable, with that which has gone before. — Joshs

And yet we can discuss Newtonian physics, despite having some grasp of modern physics.

If incommensurable means that we use different standards of judgement, then you may have a point; but if it means something like untranslatable, there will be odd consequences.

Now what do they express? — Prishon

Maybe that's the point. All decent art is somewhat ambiguous. If we looked at science the same way, we would see the myth in it and back off if claims to truth.

. Except in the realm of technique, the transition between one stage of artistic development and the next is a transition between incommensurables. — Joshs

I don't think that's true at all. Technique obviously differs with the materials that are used and the aims of the artist. Different mark-making will be found with the use of different materials, and to some degree, although not necessarily, with different subjects.

Composition is most important in all genres, and the aesthetic concern with the balance of hues and tones and shapes on the surface of the canvas, board, paper or wall is common to all genres.

I'm not seeing it... — Banno

Why cant I see the Aboriginal picture (by the way, they dont call themselves like that; the name is our namegiving).

I don't think that's true at all. — Janus

I agree; art history makes sense. If "the transition between one stage of artistic development and the next is a transition between incommensurables" then it couldn't.

Kuhn is talking about change from one historical
movement to the next in the arts.

“We might argue all day whether or not the particular artist or poet or philosopher would feel the present state of art or poetry or philosophy to be an advance or a
retrogression from the days when he himself was a creative spirit. There would be no unanimity among us; and more significant still, no agreement between the majority view which might prevail and that which would have prevailed fifty years ago. (Conant 1957, p. 34)

Are you taking about deductive sense or a different kind of sense?

Why cant I see the Aboriginal picture — Prishon

It's Watarrka art, an example of dot painting. There's a story that dot painting developed after colonisation as a way of encoding sacred knowledge so that white fellas could not understand it.

But there are common themes that translate - see https://www.kateowengallery.com/page/Aboriginal-Art-Symbols

As to claims of objectivity... Nuh.

And yet we can discuss Newtonian physics, despite having some grasp of modern physics.

If incommensurable means that we use different standards of judgement, then you may have a point; but if it means something like untranslatable, there will be odd consequences. — Banno

We can discuss and write about any period in cultural history, or our personal biographies, for that matter. And those who come after us can do the same. In each case , a reinterpreting of history occurs. There is no historical memory without revision. So useful translation happens, but it does not bring back a preserved past. It would be like trying to authentically recreate period music.

Good point about art history making sense!

Are you taking about deductive sense or a different kind of sense? — Joshs

Yes.

That is, in true Feyerabendian style, once the sense is expressed it can be undermined. Anything goes.

There is no historical memory without revision. — Joshs

Sure; but it goes deeper than that, doesn't it. the revision, the interpretation, is not just historical but occurs even at the time in which events take place.

I'm not sure what point you are making here, Josh.

The most telling criticism of Feyerabend - and I ought look up its source - is that if anything goes, then everything stays. If our interpretations and understandings are all of equal worth then there is no reason to move from our prejudices and preconceptions. It's a recipe for arch-conservatism. Watch how the rejection of rationality is appropriated by Trumpists and other right extremes

Science has a grain; moving in one direction is easier than the other. That might be a result of the expression of science being explicit.

The definitions of art and science have changed over the centuries, but in modern terms, art expresses something about human subjective experience, while science describes the world of the 5 senses. Science may benefit from creative thinking, but that doesn't make it an art form.

The definitions of art and science have changed over the centuries, but in modern terms, art expresses something about human subjective experience, while science describes the world of the 5 senses. Science may benefit from creative thinking, but that doesn't make it an art form. — Noble Dust

Putting the distinction in terms of subjective and objective experience doesn't help. The artwork is there, before you, as objective as a rock. Science expresses the human subjective experience. Art uses the five senses.

Better, perhaps, to talk in terms of explicit and implicit sense.

Think about the methods of making art and what purpose, if any, it serves, and vice versa (the same about science).

Fine, move from subject/object to purpose. That'd be an improvement.

Don't be condescending; that'd be an improvement.

Now what do they express? — Prishon

The key here is that if you could set out in words what it is that a piece expresses, then there would be no need for the piece.

Art happens because words will not suffice.

Any condescension exists only in your interpretation. Make your point explicit; or draw a picture.

The definitions of art and science have changed over the centuries, but in modern terms, art expresses something about human subjective experience, while science describes the world of the 5 senses. Science may benefit from creative thinking, but that doesn't make it an art form. — Noble Dust

I was thinking that in talking about this it would help to point to a particular kind of art. What you do with Warhol can't really be done with Rembrandt. We gather the two under the umbrella of art, but it's not totally clear that they're the same sort of thing. The Warhol experience didn't even exist back then. Rembrandt is all post-modernized now. Each age is its own?

Some art is about expressing subjective stuff, like Frida Kahlo. But is it all?

To the extent that a gothic cathedral is art, it's not expressing something subjective. It's objective idealism. Does science also follow along with the prevailing philosophy? I assume so. It would be strange if it didn't.