Wednesday, October 03, 2007

(Philosophy of Bones)

Kofi Fosu Forson

Straight-boned or amputee, philosophy as a skeletal structure serves as a foundation for art. Science therefore is much the contrast. Evenly, both forms refer to a replication of order/disorder.

What are the means for science and art to engage in an ongoing dialogue? Given the wherewithal, how does an artist maintain a sense of originality without conforming to the availability of technology?

Science spearheads a cause to perhaps evolve in a totally different way from art. Is there an agreeable advantage? A recent conversation with a surgeon quoted him as saying… “Art is more complex.”

I then draw the conclusion that an artist exists eternally. Surgeons emerge out of an official vantage point. This example proves the element which defines the artist at work and the surgeon in his practice.

Inspiration is dominant. In the artist, there’s a constant source of definition, as in the muse. It generates wisdom. This then leads to an idea which begets a procedure. The actual interpretation of the idea brings us back to order and disorder.

Fair to say, the surgeon manipulates time and space much the same way an artist does. Only he exists in that very moment not giving much care to outside influences.

Whereas time and space for the artist during performance is eternal, the surgeon concentrates on time.

Art as science fails to imply accordance.

Science as art is more so applicable with reason.

No comments: