Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwocwoc
That's where you are wrong. That's how I know Feynmann hasn't got it. I just saw his paintings and drawings and they were amateurish.
I would offer that one can appreciate and understand art without being good at it.
Matter of fact... (and this kind of touches on something Tame Deuces just posted)... there are many art forms that are so technical that the best people have to have a scientific mind. Take photography, for instance - the best photographers are going to have a very technical understanding of light and the characteristics of the medium they're using (be it film or a digital camera.)
There are people who do wonderful art on programs like photoshop which... to do the basics most can learn, but to really exploit that program and use it to its fullest requires a lot of technical knowledge.
Film makers are real artists who need to understand a lot of technical information to create their craft.
Video game designers - which many would argue is an incredibly sophisticated new artform combing graphic design (which nowadays involves creating architecture, characters, controlling lighting, animation), story, employing and distorting physics, etc. - really requires a blending of the scientific mind and the artistic mind.
I kind of wandered there as I was originally trying to point out that people can visualize art but not necessarily have the skills in mediums to pull it off.
But, as the above demonstrates, there are plenty of artists who regularly must have and use both their 'scientific mind' and their 'artistic mind.'
I think we can dismiss the notion you suggested earlier that one cannot hold both views.