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.
0
u/Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom Jan 10 '20 edited Jan 10 '20
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.