When does art become science?

[amirm]

 

[andromedaaudio]

Watched the vid , in this case science is running after art , trying to unravel it

 

[rbbert]

Almost too many things to respond to

First, I think this thread is really about technology and art, not science and art.

Second, the WSJ article is pretty superficial and its emphasis isn't so much the differences between science, technology and invention (although it does explain them reasonably well in simplistic terms) as the consequences, but when I posted awhile back on the lagging of science behind technology that was exactly my concern as well.

Third, to answer amir's question (which I overlooked since I was hurrying out the door) I'm not sure any of what you describe is really science, although perhaps with more details either of your examples could be (or not).

Last, there is nothing wrong with being an inventor or "technology guy", as long as everyone realizes that we can build and measure things which we don't really understand.

 

[rbbert]

I tend to look at high-end audio as a necessary mixture of art, technology and science, mostly in that order. Technology is obviously necessary, nothing would get built without it. Unfortunately, the science behind audio reproduction is understandably mostly in practical areas, not in the nuances of reproducing music, and in fact perceptual science is far less sophisticated, reproducible and reliable than sciences with a more technological base. Therefore art becomes a necessary part of high-end (or musically accurate) audio reproduction, appropriate since in the end that is what it is all about