Hi,dear Mary and other forum friends, it took me nearly two hours to write about
this issue. And this writing is the one that I am really proud of. I hope you could help me better it, as well as write down your views on the issue. Maybe we
will have a hot discussion. Thank you.
My writing is focused on my personal view on the following issue--
ISSUE: The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each.
My writing:
The function of science and the purpose of art has been a long contested issue and is one that nearly everyone holds an opinion on. Myself being no exception. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker when we consider all those unifying explanations science provides us , and some art forms in 19th century, such as
expressionism which set about to upset.
However, in my observation, science sometimes can upset us , while most of time
art serves to reassure.
This statement does have considerable merit. First, consider the various laws and principles of physics which provide unifying explanations for what we observe
in the physical world. These principles provide reassuring sense of order, even
simplicity, to an otherwise mysterious and perplexing world. The progress in genetic engineering reassures people that since undesirable gene can be removed we
may be able to better our specie physically and psychologically , fundamentally.
Numerous achievements in space engineering seem to suggest that we might be able to find another planet to live on, or we might be able to construct a new place on other planets . This suggestion more or less conciliates the panic fear of
the doom of the earth. In all these respects, science reassures us.
Second, some great works of art serve to upset us. George Braque, the French cubist painter, expressed his convictions that the most valuable art is deeply provocative. “Science reassures us,” Braque wrote. “ The arts disturb us.” Beethoven’s early listeners, who were accustomed to the predictable harmonies and melodic lengths of Haydn, dismissed his symphonies as literally causing their ears
to hurt. The Parisian audience for Stravinsky’s “Rites of Spring” in 1913 rioted when the orchestra first performed it.
However, on the other hand are two compelling arguments. One such argument has to do with the function of science. As we acquire more scientific facts, things seem not to become more comprehensible, but more complex and more mysterious. Advances in exploration technology seem to corroborate the theory of a continually
expanding universe that began at the very beginning of time with a “big bang”.
On one level this knowledge helps us comprehend our place in the universe and our ultimate destiny. Yet, it adds another chapter to the mystery about what existed before time and the universe.
A second argument has to do with reassuring function of arts. A Renaissance painting of a Madonna and Child, for many viewers, is somehow a revelation of transcendent spirituality; Classical ballet, which is beautiful and peaceful, satisfies us over a long period of time; In Impressionist paintings, we always find soothing, genteel, pastoral themes and images that certainly are nothing to upset the viewers.
In the final analysis, the speaker unnecessarily expands certain traits of science and arts to the overall functions of them. Both science and arts can reassure
, as well as upset us. Thus the speaker’s generalization is unfairly and unconvincing.
