issue176 by tequilawine

tequilawineUID: 2702008

TOPIC: ISSUE176 - "The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each."
WORDS: 337          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-2-20 14:52:39

Some contend that the function of art and science are different: the one being to reassure, the other being to upset. Indeed, the effect of them are different, however, allow me to have some disagreements on the point of the illustration of their main use.

It seems indisputable that science has its function of reassure, but deeply mulling, you will find that the plausible matter is not true. Then, in contrast, what we can surly acquainted from our now highly developed technology is that science is nothing more than discovery and explore, in other words, to some degree, it only can be interpreted into some natural norm that not reassure us but remind us of the more complexity the world is beyond our imagination. Take Newton and Einstein for example, at contemporaries, the science forged by them didn't really make people more confident of their updated technology, instead of that, ironically it reveals an totally unfamiliar curious world to the mass.

So how could you be so sure about the concept of fusion of science assurance?  Comparing with the rhetoric of reassure, i would rather utilize discovery or explore, much more exactly it would be to explain the essence of operation of science. Look around you now, do u think that the media civilization approaches you with more assurance or the hight speed automobile give you more freedom on hight way? No doubt answer is not, whereas you have to admit, the human nation history turned to a new page under the discovery of the new technology, and it intrigues us to explore more obscure things that we haven't seen or experienced before.

Let us take around and look at art, Similarly, the assumption about the main value of art seems far less than it worked through thousands of human evolving history.  It is truth that art inspires us both from the resistant and menial ways. At the beginning of our new century, the styles of art-either classic or modern cohabit with each other in harmony very well, as we know, the former are probe to be menial while the other more aggressive. It proves what we said. Upsetting consists of part of the art function, with the other wing comes forms a menial way as appreciation. What's the common thing lying in both of them or do they have same goal in nature? Inspiration.

Seeing both of them in multiple ways, the main function of science is of discovery, whereas the purpose of art is to inspire. Therein lies the value of each.

plukaUID: 2721764

B1：大致的意思是科学的进步让人们生活更复杂更难理解从而事实上没起到reassure的效果。观点不错，但建议加上些具体的例子，细节。要阐明为啥科学重视explore于是就reassure了——这个跳跃要补上。
B3讲艺术的upset啥的，为啥结尾扯到了古典跟现代艺术的共同点？
整体看来科学和艺术分配不均匀，观点受字数限制没展开，不知道是否还有没写上的观点——感觉全文的思路还没完。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

to make up the gap between reassurance and explore, i think along the technology advancing, it arises people curiostiy because under simply phenomenon lies in very complicated science principles which can not be discovered by simply knowing.

now, coming to the next point about art, what i try to say is that, art is not merely about to upset but also include appreciating. it seems like two sides in a coin. nowadays, art really have a trend that modern art seems more aggressive to upset people to be awareness of their inner spirit. But dating back to medieval times, art in that era expressed more appreciation about religion or beauty which is also in faovr of inspiring people who are not awaken up. Unfair it would be to judged by the only function of rebelliousness. To be crucial to the enemies is not the symbol of also doing the same to the friends.