Progression in the Arts

["Bob L. Sturm" <sturm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

MVFarley Said:
""about this - isn't the sense of "progress" in the arts just a little 
misguided, and kind of romantic? What do you think, is linear progress in 
music an illusion?  I prefer to think of music history as a spiral, not a 
vertical line.""
-----

Interesting you say vertical line instead of horizontal. Do you relate 
progress as going up rather than going right? Perhaps you are not a 
Cartesian.

Ever since I was a kid I hated the idea of "The End of Science." It seemed 
so depressing that there could one day be nothing more to learn; 
everything is known and predictable. I have also despised the heat death 
idea of the universe. (I don't know why I take these things so 
personally.)

In my recent research I have been looking at the two worlds of Art and 
Science. I am a physicist and a composer, and some of my music comes from 
particle simulations. The art is informed by the physics, and the science 
is guided by musical principles (mostly form, timbre). Through this work I 
have become a composerscientist. The two fields meld into one where 
working out a musical form for a piece entails solving differential 
equations, and curiosity in some physical potential creates musical 
material. Naturally I have been led to question the similarities and 
differences between Art and Science. This subject is cliche now.

But as regards to progress in Art and Science I have been swayed to 
believe that they are common enough to share the same destiny. It is 
easy for me to see that they have a common ancestry, Magic: which is 
a manifestation of the human condition to outwit fate. Thus Art and 
Science are means with which to participate in, comprehend, and control 
our environment, inner and outer.

It is silly to say that Art is gradually progressing to a state of 
perfection which will be complete in its description of our environment. 
Caravaggio is not further from "the truth" than Pollock. It is silly to 
say that Ptolemy is as close to "the truth" as Einstein. (Does "the truth" 
exist and can it be acquired?) It isn't silly however to say Pollock is 
more applicable to the conditions of our times than is Caravaggio. 
Caravaggio came before the world wars, before the breakdown of tonality, 
before expressionism. And so it isn't silly to say Ptolemy was as correct 
in his time, as Einstein is correct in our time. Ptolemy came before the 
Calculus and the telescope.

This all leads me to posit Science does not progress as "we" have 
always thought, i.e. leading to an ultimate truth. Like Art, Science is a 
product of our current environment, inside and out. Science was different 
before the Calculus. Art was different before oils. With new tools come 
new perspectives and opportunities. Thus Science and Art are not 
progressing toward a final truth. (I am adamantly opposed to most 
social constructionist ideas of science.)

As far as the spiral notion goes I am not sure of the extent to which this 
can be applied. Love is a recurring theme in art, just as waves and 
particles are in science. Perhaps this is not a good marker for the 
evolution of the disciplines. Instead it might be best to look not at 
the products but the way in which they were conceived. This subject 
will be a major part of my upcoming doctorate work.

-Bob.

-- 
     ,ooo.
 .  a888888:..--.
\\\ 8888888:`\   \        Bob L. Sturm
 \\\`Y888P'   \.  \       
 =\\\_..' @ ^_ \   \      
 `c\`-'  `-\'   \.  \     Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla
    \  \   <\  .'`  )     http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~sturm/
     \  \n   .'  ._/      http://www.composerscientist.com/
      \__|).\  ._/        http://www.mp3.com/BobLSturm
      `--: .-)_/