Why Literature Matters

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Thu May 10 07:16:45 PDT 2001


Joanna:
> >In general, I find the often drawn dichtomy between arts and the sciences
> >to do a disservice to both and to our general understanding of reality.
> >

Carl Remick:
> I think the arts and sciences are fundamentally at odds. To one degree or
> another ever since myths were first created, the arts have been concerned
> with creating visions that could be shared by people at large and thus help
> promote a common understanding of reality. Science, OTOH, is concerned with
> nailing down objective specifics with great precision and rapidly leaves the
> average person in the dust. It's a great mechanism for teaching us more and
> more about less and less, being driven by ever greater specialization that
> results in tremendous technical achievements that are incomprehensible to
> all but specialists, leaving most people -- in search of existential, not
> technical, insights into the nature of things -- alienated and lost. The
> arts connote; the sciences denote; never the twain shall meet.

On the contrary, science is by definition public, and at least in theory every attempt is made to explain, clarify and publicize findings. The materialism of science is precisely its insistent grounding in common experience. The "average person" is left in the dust only because the average person doesn't usually care to spend the time and energy required to study what's being done, although this is a lot easier than doing it in the first place. That's a personal choice -- _de_gustibus_.

As far as I can see, the average person (for similar reasons) is also left in the dust by most art, except popular art specifically aimed at a very low common denominator in order to maximize sales. One is allowed to be arcane, indeed, totally incomprehensible in art in a way which would never be tolerated among people doing science. But that's as it should be, I think, except when art is deliberately made arcane or inaccessible as a ruling-class game so they can think better of themselves.

The big problem with science, as opposed to art, is that it's supposed to be instrumental, that is, toolish -- you're supposed to be able to use it to do something. This means that there seems to be a level beneath which it can't be effectively reduced, whereas you can make art about as simple-minded as you like and still come up with things which are effective and valuable. We can have rock'n'roll music but we can't have rock'n'roll science.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list