Actually, the distinction between art and science goes back at least as far as Aristotle--as long as the distinction we're talking about is between expressing and knowing.
The distinction in its specifically modern form goes back to the German Enlightenment (early to mid 1700s) and can be found in Baumgarten's _Aesthetics_, among other places.
The Arts and Crafts movement was one manifestation of this; but as I noted above in my previous comment, the issue didn't become as important to the culture at large until the post-WWI era. Both Socialist and Fascist movements in Europe manipulated the distinction to their own ends--and right here in America the same was done by McCarthy.
As a graduate student in philosophy writing my dissertation on early 19th-century German attempts to intergrate their conception of science and technology with their conception of the rest of human life, I think about this stuff now and then.
Mainly I think about what a scam has been pulled off on the world by a strange confluence of events early in the 20th century, which led to the idea that science and technology had always been separate from the rest of society. This kind of thinking is easily traced to both left- and right-wing political movements which gained momentum in Europe and North America after World War One. That doesn't make it false, of course; it's false for other reasons. But its falsity hasn't prevented it from becoming bible truth to many.
But my real point is this: Slashdot reader responses to Katz are, mostly, encouraging in that they show that few on this board are fooled. Of course, most of you (or most who post) are still prone to a high level of inane scientism. And perhaps you reject the dichotomy between art and technology only to assimilate art to technology. But at least you're ahead of Katz.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the distinction between art and science goes back at least as far as Aristotle--as long as the distinction we're talking about is between expressing and knowing.
The distinction in its specifically modern form goes back to the German Enlightenment (early to mid 1700s) and can be found in Baumgarten's _Aesthetics_, among other places.
The Arts and Crafts movement was one manifestation of this; but as I noted above in my previous comment, the issue didn't become as important to the culture at large until the post-WWI era. Both Socialist and Fascist movements in Europe manipulated the distinction to their own ends--and right here in America the same was done by McCarthy.
As a graduate student in philosophy writing my dissertation on early 19th-century German attempts to intergrate their conception of science and technology with their conception of the rest of human life, I think about this stuff now and then.
Mainly I think about what a scam has been pulled off on the world by a strange confluence of events early in the 20th century, which led to the idea that science and technology had always been separate from the rest of society. This kind of thinking is easily traced to both left- and right-wing political movements which gained momentum in Europe and North America after World War One. That doesn't make it false, of course; it's false for other reasons. But its falsity hasn't prevented it from becoming bible truth to many.
But my real point is this: Slashdot reader responses to Katz are, mostly, encouraging in that they show that few on this board are fooled. Of course, most of you (or most who post) are still prone to a high level of inane scientism. And perhaps you reject the dichotomy between art and technology only to assimilate art to technology. But at least you're ahead of Katz.