After years of the 'smooshed foot' explanation... someone finally explained
it to me so the distinction made sense (no such distinction was made in the
other kingdoms I had lived in). A science is something functional. An art
is decorative. example: a dress may be a science - the bling on it is art.
This is an explanation  I can live with.


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dorcas or Jean <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> When I was new and asked how the non-martial pursuits were divided between
> Arts and Science, I was given some silly reasons.  “If you drop it on your
> foot and it hurts, it’s a Science.”  “If you drop it and it clanks or
> breaks, it’s a Science.”  "Science uses math or fire, but Art does not."
> The existence of these “reasons” is not proof that there is NO distinction,
> they merely point out that it IS difficult to make the distinction, and
> that most people don’t really give it much thought.
> If I ask you to define beauty, and you cannot easily answer me, that
> doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as beauty.  Further, some people
> would be able to give a good definition, and other people would give a
> different, also good, definition.  Lack of an easy answer, or having
> multiple answers, to the question of what’s an art vs. what’s a science
> doesn’t mean that there is NO answer.  The distinction may be arbitrary and
> subjective, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
> Here is how I divide up the arts and the sciences.  An art is an activity
> in pursuit of beauty.  A science is an activity in pursuit of utility.
> This is not to say that beautiful things cannot be useful, or useful things
> cannot be beautiful.  The distinction lies in the primary goal of the
> activity.  A mug that holds your beer can and should look cool.  But a
> delicate, translucent, China teacup is more than just a drinking vessel.
> It’s pretty, and it wouldn’t be the same if it weren’t.  A well made wooden
> bench is a joy to behold, but an intricately carved wooden statue of a
> saint is to be looked at, and venerated if that’s your deal, and not merely
> utilitarian.  Michelangelo's "David" is NOT an example of a science, even
> though Calontir tends to categorize sculpture as science.  By the same
> token, a sturdy Elizabethan corset isn't really an example of an art, even
> though costuming is generally recognized as art.
> Discussions like this one are how our Society evolves and grows.  There
> you have my contribution.  Next?
> Dorcas
>   ------------------------------
> Greetings one and all,
> Something that has bothered me for more than several years and many Reigns:
> Every year or so we have the same subject come up. Combining the Arts
> GOA's and the Sciences GOA's under one award. What bothers me about this is
> the difference in the two discipline tracks which I define loosely as:
> Arts-I can break it with a hammer (yes I can break Elizabethan costume with
> a hammer), and Sciences-I make it with a hammer, it is my definition-one
> that works for me.
> I hear no discussion occurring on combining the now 3 different
> Marshallate GOA's under the same thought process, although by logic if itis good for one to streamline its good for all.
> I am opposed to a combined A&S GOA. It leaves many starting over in the
> awards structure as then the pool of individuals to satisfy becomes much
> larger, and the number of folks who know nothing of the craft in question
> are now getting to discuss folks without adequate basis in the skills
> required.
> The biggest concern here is that the people who always want this to
> happen, are people who already have these awards, and just seem to want to
> put a mark on Kingdom history and customs, IMO be it good or bad. That is a
> rather self-centered and self-serving stance IMO. There was a reason for
> the creation of the current award structure, and one that has served us
> well.
> Discuss away
> Master Gottfried von Koln, OP

Its ALL about the Purple~