关于科学与艺术的讨论(英文)

2021年1月24日发(作者：回应)
2. At present, science has been developing at a high speed, but people still
have a high opinion of artists. What can the arts tell us of the life that science
cannot?

Science and Art

The
limitations
of
science
are
the
most
evident
in
attempts
to
use
scientific
methods
to
unveil
the
secrets
of
art.
Science
'knows
everything'
about
the
grand piano: the number, quality and length of its strings; the species of wood
used;
the
composition
of
the
glue,
and
the
finest
details
of
its
design.
Nevertheless, it is unable to explain what happens to this polished box when a
virtuoso sits down to play. Perhaps this is even unnecessary. A person crying
over a book does not usually concern himself with the means the author used
to achieve this effect. He can, of course, at a later date read a critical work,
twice as thick, on the book that has impressed him so. This all, however, will
resemble
an
autopsy,
a
thing
necessary
for
specialists
but
extremely
unpleasant for most people. Marcus Aurelius wrote that 'to despise songs and
dances, it is sufficient to decompose them into their component elements'. But
Art is wise - through all the ages it has guarded the intangible truth of sensual
perceptions from the persistent intrusions of probing science. Art has always
been valued precisely for its capacity to 'remind us of harmonies inaccessible
to systematic analysis'. Anyone can understand the construction of a nuclear
reactor even if he has never seen one. But it is absolutely impossible to explain
to a person what charm is if he has never been enchanted.


'The might of science lies in its universality. Its laws are free of the arbitrariness
of people,
it only
represents their
collective experience,
independent
of
age,
nationality, or frame of mind.'


The secret of art is its inimitability. The power of its influence depends on the
whole
body
of
the
previous
experience
of
a
person,
on
the
wealth
of
his
associations, on elusive changes in his mood, on a chance glance, word, or
touch - on all that constitutes the individuality, the beauty of the transient and
the power of the inimitable.


The highest achievement for a scientists is to have his findings confirmed, i.e.
repeated by another scientist. On the other hand, sameness kills art, and so a
great tragic actor 'dies' on the stage in a new way each night.


Cases
are
known
of
symphonies
composed
by
persons
without
even
the
rudiments of a formal musical education. These works may have been unusual
but were eligible as such if at leas a small section of the public liked them. In
science
such
a
situation
is
inconceivable.
It
has
a
criterion
of
truth
and
its
language does not contain the words 'like' and 'dislike'.


In
Science
truths
are
proved
and
phenomena
are
explained.
In
art
they
are
interpreted. Logical reasoning is alien to art which substitutes the spontaneous
cogency of images for rigorous proofs.


As a rule, science can explain why this formula is good and why that theory is
bad. Art can only show the fascination of music and the brilliance of a sonnet,
never explaining anything completely.


Science is thorough and unhurried; it keeps on solving its problems for years
on end, and many of them are often passed over from generation to generation.
It
can
afford
this
luxury
because
of
an
unambiguous
method
that
has
been
devised for recording and storing the facts established by science. In art the
intuitively precise world of images is fluid. (Great actors are sometimes called
'heroes
of
the
fleeting
moment'.)
One
keen
but
split-second
perception,
however, may awake in the heart of a person a response that will stay with him
for years and that may even alter the whole course of his life.


Then would I hail the fleeting moment
O stay - you are so fair!


was Faust's passionate longing that could only be fulfilled by the magic of art. It
is this magic that after a lapse of many years can bring back with a frightening
clarity the nuances of remote thoughts and moods that defy any words.


'Notwithstanding
the
seeming
fragility
of
ambiguity
of
artistic
images,
art
is
more
durable
and
ancient
than
science.
The
Gilgamesh
Epic
and
Homer's
poems do stir us even now because they tell us something that is vital in man
and that has remained unchanged for thousands of years. As for science, it
has hardly had time to consolidate the new possibilities of research.'


It
is
almost
impossible
today
to
read
books
on
physics
written
in
the
last
century, so obsolete they have become and so much has the whole style of
scientific
thought
changed
since
then.
The
importance
of
scientific
works
is,
therefore,
determined
by
their
productivity,
not
their
longevity.
They
have
already done their bit, if they helped to promote science in their time.


We
could
go
on
searching
for
and
finding
endless
shades
of
distinction
between art and science. The benefit of such an exercise is doubtful, for the
two human endeavours only differ in their ways of gaining knowledge of the
surrounding
world
and
human
nature.
Ancient
Greeks
did
not
distinguish
between
the
two
notions
and
called
them
by
a
single
word
Greek(techne),