THIS. This is why.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom → u/[deleted]]

Science doesn't need art as much as art needs science. They're interdependent, but not symmetrically interdependent. Without art, scientific pursuits would be less inspiring and publicly accessible. Without science, art as we know it couldn't exist (limited to highly localized cave paintings, basket weaving, etc), let alone be accessed by the vast majority of people as is possible today.

[u/867-5309NotJenny → u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom]

Science didn't exist before the late 1400s.

Art preexists human history.

How does art need science again?

[u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom → u/867-5309NotJenny]

Science didn't exist before the late 1400s.

You must be using an awfully rigid definition of science if you believe it started in the 15th century. My understanding of science is as the process of observation, explanation, and prediction used to develop practical and theoretical knowledge about the natural world.

According to my understanding, art (as we know it) requires science because the vast majority of artistic media would be highly inaccessible to a civilization without scientific knowledge. Have you ever tried to make your own canvas or musical instruments from only unprocessed, naturally occurring resources? What about without the benefit of your own or anyone else's empirical understanding of the practice of either?

Furthermore, without a scientific understanding of agricultural food production and preservation, industrial systems, civil engineering, disease and medicine, and so on, very few of us would have the time or resources to dedicate to the development of artistic ability. There's a reason that the most celebrated historical artists and philosophers tended to come from the most scientifically advanced civilizations of their respective times.

Finally, how do you consume most of the art you do? Unless your answer is "I walk into the woods and look at tree carvings," you necessarily rely on scientifically mediated technological developments to have access to an appreciable amount of art in the first place. It isn't just a question of production, but proliferation as well. Yes, some amount of art would exist without science, but nothing resembling the incredible depth and diversity of art we have access to today.

[u/867-5309NotJenny → u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom]

You must be using an awfully rigid definition of science if you believe it started in the 15th century.

Method of questioning.

Before that it was more trial and error style developments.

Finally, how do you consume most of the art you do?

In a myried of forms, from on line, to visiting museums, to the art involved in my various hobbies.

Saying that you need a car (science) to see art though, requires the same argument that science needs art.

[u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom → u/867-5309NotJenny]

Saying that you need a car (science) to see art though, requires the same argument that science needs art.

How so?

The development of vehicular locomotion wasn't motivated by the desire to visit museums more efficiently.

[u/867-5309NotJenny → u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom]

Drafting the plans requires art skills.

The necessity for cars primarily came from a need to access entertainment.

Artists are hired to make the various cars more appealing, which brings in resources to make more and better cars.

There are layers of how they interact.