To what extent is art a science?

I am opposed to the majority opinion here – the question is perhaps somewhat crudely worded, but I maintain that there are at least a lot of scientific aspects in art.And I am not only referring to the description/analysis of art such as in “literature studies” or “art history” (as a hobby writer, literary scholars are for me something like the archenemy).

  • Music: without the concept of “clock” music is very difficult to imagine – it is more of a sound.

The ‘science of the beat’ only allows a rhythm.

  • Painting/drawing: the invention/discovery of “perspective” can be compared to a scientific achievement.
  • Literature and drama: this is now the area where I am active and not just talk about it.
  • First of all, writing is to a very large extent psychology. On the one hand, when I design a character, I use the insights of psychology for its motivations and actions. And that’s what writers did before there was official psychology as a field of science. And not only with the characters – I also use psychology to build a bond between the reader and the protagonist; or to generate voltage. The same in green applies to acting.

  • Rules of art: yes, there are – and they are techniques that are carried out according to scientific criteria.
  • In acting, for example, Stanislavski’s methods, or the method acting derived from it, are among the most well-known.For German writers, creative writing is quite new as a subject, but in the USA it is a long way.And with what? Rightly so. Today, computer programs can detect an arc of tension in a story. Now the really great, creative art sometimes consists of breaking the rules. James Joyce has broken some rules with Ulysses.But to do that, you have to knowthe rules first, and Joyce didn’t do it by chance or ‘just like that’.Style has been a scientifically recognized instrument for 2500 years, through rhetoric.


    And the final turnaround … whoever allows philosophy as a science (a premise that one does not necessarily have to share), should also allow art as such.

    Art interprets the state of our civilization, our society.In an immediate way that directly appeals to our emotions, but therefore no less precise – or imprecise – than philosophy does.

    You can see Tupac Shakur, his character rapper, as the spiritual successor of Martin Luther King Jr., when you see that Tupac’s lyrics contained a damn lot of social criticism.

    What does Wikipedia tell us about surrealism?This: “Surrealism refers to a spiritual movement that has been expressing itself since the 1920s as a way of life and the art of living against traditional norms.It finds expression up to the present day, both philosophically and in the media, literature, art and film.In contrast to the satirical approach of the Dada, psychoanalytically based theories are processed against the prevailing views.” This can be seen as a direct reaction to the First World War, or even to the spirit and social attitude of the Fin de Siecle.

    Art is the continuation of philosophy by other means.

    If no one has said this before me, I hereby register copyrights to 😉

    Leave a Reply