Albert Einstein, who needs no introduction, once remarked that “it would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
I do not think that the question is “which is a superior way to represent the world: science or art?” but rather “which approach is superior for which type of representation?” Science is useful for conveying representation about objective, verifiably true things. Art is useful for representing subjective, but nonetheless real things, like emotions and perspectives. I am aware that the question of whether reality is primarily objective or subjective is very important in philosophy; I will pick the compromise answer and say that reality, as perceived by human beings, has a touch of both.
If one really wants to gain an understanding of what the Earth looks like, a satellite picture is probably the way to go. There are paintings of the Earth as well, but they are scientific in nature, as they are based more on actual observations than an artist’s perspective. However, if one wants to see how the world (different from the planet Earth!) looks to a certain person, a painting is one’s best bet. Is the former necessarily more “real” than the latter? What relation does that beautiful blue sphere with touches of green and hints of white at the poles have to actual life on Earth? On the other hand, what does a person’s perception of the world have to do with the objective, observable reality? The question is not which is superior, but which is best for what one is looking for.
If one really wants to learn about the atom, one should opt for a scientific image. Granted, there are no good photographs of atoms like there are of the Earth, so even scientific models are slightly divorced from reality, but they are indeed chiefly based on objective observations, so they aren’t “art.” If one, however, wants an idea of a person’s vision of what the true building block of matter should look like, a nucleus surrounded by electrons wouldn’t really have much visceral significance. An artist’s rendition, however, might.
Describing emotions in terms of brain chemicals just wouldn’t make sense on a human level. It is much easier to get an idea of how an artist is feeling by the color scheme of his painting than if he were to provide a description of the levels of dopamine and serotonin in his brain. The question of Scientific vs. Artistic representations is entirely contextual.
Also: just posted 11/10 assignment. http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/weinroth10/2010/12/07/beauty/
Very nice discussion.