Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
"By the 19th century the two truths of science and art were an established fact."
I have to agree with Carrol. The "truth" of art is a 19th century issue, a minority one at that, and mostly of interest to poets. You find it with tortured artists like Joyce, but you dont think of someone like Dickens, or even Eliot, as worrying about it.
Donne is admittedly a unique case, but not that different from Shakespeare, ransacking all kinds of arcane matter for metaphor.
The important opposition for Science is not Art, but Religion, and other kinds of conventional thinking. The same is true of literature generally. Literature wants to bring unrecognized experience to light; science and religion want to make experience narrower.
BW
By the 19th century the two truths of science and art were an established fact.
In the 17th century you see the beginnings of that distinction. Bacon talks about it, as does Sidney in the Defense of Poesy. And there are lots of others. The whole notion that Donne was reacting to the truth of the scientific revolution also depends on a perceived difference in the 17th century.
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
> My general sense is that the c oncept of "ART," as used here, did not
> come into existence until th 19th century, nor did the concept of
> Science as used here. So the point somehow misses me.
>
> Carrol
>
> 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> No, it wasn't that simple. The ideal of purity for normal language was derived from the worship of "stable" (dead) classical languages. And there were those who argued that such purity had the "truth" of a stopped clock.
>>
>> If you're interested in the subject, read Cassirer "The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy" or try my diss, which is microfiched by U of Minnesota(?)
>>
>> Artists most definitely did not buy the division between the "truth" of science and of art.
>>
>> Joanna
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: "Charles Brown"
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Joanna:
>>> why it was that in the seventeenth century, people started talking
>>> about there being one truth for science and another for art, a
>>> subsidiary assertion being that normal language was degraded, but that
>>> the language of science (mathematics) was pure....and that therefore,
>>> science was by definition "true."
>>>
>>> ^^^^^
>>> CB: I'm guessing it was the scientist-mathematicians and artists who
>>> started saying that math and art language was "pure" and "true" and
>>> normal language degraded ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
>>> www.surfcontrol.com
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk