View Full Version : Artists VS. Intellectuals.

Golden Eel
01-13-2012, 01:07 AM
Which is more important?

There's obviously a difference between the two. Intellectuals are able to analyze this world through scientific lenses. Artists are able to do the same through emotional lenses. Each are equally valid interpretations. Which do you agree with more, and why?

Which is more important to your existence?

Personally, I'm confused. I think anything worth figuring out in this world can be accomplished intellectually, through the sciences. But at the same time, I love 'art' more than anything. It is what has given me any sort of 'meaning'.

I want to hear the opinions of others.

Trolls can go fuck themselves.

01-13-2012, 01:43 AM
That's an incredibly difficult question. Science has provided us with every practical advancement, art has inspired people in ways science never could.

Sorry that not more in depth, but for my money emotion trumps cold hard intellectualism any day.

01-13-2012, 02:21 AM
Artists and intellectuals are the two sides of the same coin. There would be no progression in the art world if artists did not experiment in the same way as an intellect would. In saying this, there would be no discoveries or inventions if intellects did not hold the same driving creative force as an artist. Artists and intellects have influenced one another throughout history; they are on the same level of consciousness, utilizing the equivalent methods of analysis and passion to create and discover.

The Empirical Guy
01-13-2012, 04:28 AM
^ This. I don't think the two are as far apart as you might think.

Which is more important? What is 'important?' Without science, we'd be stuck in a Dark Ages level of technology, and not having a discussion on the internet. Which is Devil magic. Science brings many innovations to make our lives easier, give us better health, etc. But throughout history, is has been art that has pushed the boundaries of social and intellectual growth. When I say 'intellectual' there, I don't mean in the sense of science and the 'opposing side' of this discussion, rather the state of consciousness and awareness within our brains, the level at which we perceive things, rationalize and on which our mind operates. That's not particularly clear but as I have said before, if we could understand and break down art completely, it wouldn't be art. It would be science.

Another way of looking at it might be to say that it was scientists that figured out how to get a man on the moon, but it was an artist that dreamed we should go there.

01-13-2012, 06:26 AM
It's hard to dechipher one from the other as there are intellectuals who consider themselves artists and also artists who consider themselves intellectuals. It's an amalgam, like a swirling soup that we all have different tastes for. What matters is, is it frothy or rich? Does it make settle with your palette? What do I mean by that? Look at athiesm and theism for example. Both athiests and thiests debate the existence of God, so in essense they are the same. They work in the same league essentially, same game, different teams.

As for what is more important to me, it depends on what I am experiencing at the time and what keeps me balanced. There are times in life where you have to be pragmatic, and other times where you may choose to aesthetically sedate your percieved world in order to cope or to expell something from yourself that needs to be expelled through your own stylistic preference. I'll go more into it when I get back from work.

01-13-2012, 07:01 AM
There is no conflict for me, you need to be both to be a whole person. I am a research scientist and I have come to understand that what I do is as much an Art as a Science. Without imagination I would simply know things and that isn't enough. In order to discover new things you have first to be able to imagine them. Then you have to be able to create a new model of the universe in your head and feel it in order to understand it. To me a mathematical proof is as beautiful as any other work of art - I think it was Richard Feynman who said 'A mathematical proof does not have to be beautiful but I have never seen one that isn't.' Imagination is more important than knowledge but neither is worth a damn without intelligence. That is just my personal take on it.

Both scientists and artists seek to understand and express the Universe in their own way so as Shangs said 'Same game, different teams.'

01-17-2012, 03:20 AM
Much like several of the other responses here, there's not as much of a black-and-white separation between the two as the opening post suggests. Neither one is more important than the other, they just have their own contexts and levels of significance at different times.
To use an incredibly basic example, it's like a cocktail; there's a chemical methodology to how the drink tastes, which compounds and flavours will enhance the recipient's experience, but on the flip-side, there's also a level of aesthetic satifaction involved, the mixer will prepare the drink to look and represent a certain mood or description. Technically you could just throw all that shit in a glass and surely it would be the same? The same ingredients maybe, but not the same experience.

More often than not, that's what life should be like, though with far more complex situations. Love, for instance, could be argued by some witless cynic as a simple mixture of the right chemicals and hormones within two people genetically compatible. But the truth is far more fascinating than that, real love is like art, inexplicable, intangible, and about as far from a scientific equation as you can get.
I enjoy knowing what makes things tick through the research and reliability of scientific fact, but there's some situations where I just don't care, and don't need to know. Again, that makes neither one more important than the other, they just have their own time and place.

I think anything worth figuring out in this world can be accomplished intellectually, through the sciences.
When something makes perfect sense to you emotionally one day, you won't be concerned about needing an intricate scientific explanation for it.

Intellect - in my experience - is also as much an art form as any other. Meeting someone who inspires you with their intellect can be every bit as captivating as marvelling over a beautiful painting, getting immersed in a sumptuous novel, or hearing an exquisite piece of music.

Golden Eel
01-17-2012, 04:47 AM
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I posted this thread, I was drunk. Interesting replies though, I'd say I agree with the general consensus in here more than I agree with my own original post. Drunk me is a retard, apologies.

01-17-2012, 07:33 AM
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I posted this thread, I was drunk. Interesting replies though, I'd say I agree with the general consensus in here more than I agree with my own original post. Drunk me is a retard, apologies.

Nuerotoxicity - Alcohol-induced neurotoxicity syndrome is an acquired neurological damage caused by excessive alcohol abuse. This condition is associated with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, and is characterized by dementia. Binge drinking can result in ischemic strokes, mental retardation, and brain damage to the prefrontal area of the brain that controls motor skills, elaboration of thought, and often leads to internet scribings that make little sense to the reader while the author percieves him/herself as being completely lucid. :)

Be sure to tell your doctor of your lifestyle. I'd say you may be prescribed Thiamine, Librium, and perhaps even something like Campral. Then given some time for your equilibrium, blood homostasis, and nervous system time to establish a consistent baseline again, you'll be in good shape.

02-10-2012, 07:14 AM
^ Absolutely agreed.

The right answer is always and forever "MOAR DRUGZ, plz!"