The arts deal in the particular, the individual and the personal while the sciences deal in the general, the universal and the collective." To what extent does this statement obscure the nature of both areas of knowledge?
The arts became a necessity only after physiological, safety, social and self esteem needs had been fulfilled by an individual. It is said that “the arts are a way of expressing emotion”. Thus, it is separated from science, in which everything is objective and emotion free. It is said that the arts deal in the individual and the personal. This is true to a certain extent. Artists (musicians, painters, photographers) express their own emotions through their work. The audience/spectators interpret the meaning of the art form in their own particular way. The idea that each person everyone should have their say, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, does not cause anyone to question everyone else’s views, when it comes to art. Therefore everyone believes in his/her version of the “truth”. This can be seen in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting, the “Mona Lisa”. No one can tell why the background of the painting slants from her right, or why Leonardo painted it(x ray scans confirm this) over the features of a man (it hasn’t been verified if the man is Leonardo himself). Many people have different theories, but at the end of the day, they will all be right because Leonardo never left anything which could explain his true intentions. This theory would be limited, however, if he was alive and/or left something behind which would explain the curious nature of the painting.
The arts are said to deal in the particular. This is almost always true. The world is divided in terms of culture, religion and language, in spite of technology and globalization trying to bridge gaps. The way something is viewed in one part of the world is almost never viewed in the same way in another. Thus, it is obvious that art that is related to culture and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document