1. Introduction
In our century of rapid development of science and technology, all-encompassing media, it would seem difficult to surprise us with something new. And the new every day inexorably and noisy invades our lives. And yet the world is infinitely richer and more diverse than all the latest discoveries in science, technology, culture and art. It confuses even modern science fiction. Paradoxically? But it is so. Paradoxes always express something unexpected, diverging from the settled, generally accepted.
Knowledge is above all human activity. It is he, a person who by all available means, in historical ways, masters and humanizes reality. Man created two truly powerful means of knowing nature and himself – science and art.
Art originated before science, it first absorbed all forms of human knowledge. Why are they subsequently divided? The answer to this question must be sought in the study of the history of human knowledge itself. The story itself is nothing but the activity of a person pursuing his goals. Not history, it is a person, a real, living person who has mastered, lived in the earthly world, drew all his knowledge, sensations and so on from the sensual world and the experience gained from this world. He tried to arrange the world around him so that a person in him would learn and assimilate the truly human, so that he would know himself as a person.
2. Rivals or allies?
The invention of the engine, the car and the aircraft, film and radio, did not make a revolution in the psychology of people or their worldview. New discoveries in science and technology are incomparable with previous ones.
Science and technology can not affect the attitude of people and, consequently, on their psychology. And yet, is there a mutual influence between art and science? Yes, science and art not only influence each other, but also compete in discoveries: the first is in the area of nature’s secrets, the second is of the human soul. The very same world of science can be one of the many objects to which art is drawn. Science can move Mount Everest from its place, but it cannot make even a bit kinder human heart. This can only be done by art. Moreover, this is his main, eternal goal. Modern America can not be denied technical and scientific progress, but one cannot say that its art is spiritually richer, more humane, deeper, brighter than the art of Italian Renaissance, French art of the XVIII century or Russian art of the XIX century.
Art is a grand building, a separate piece of art is a microscopic building, but also completed. In science, no research has been completed; it has meaning and value among its predecessors and followers. If science is likened to a grand building, then separate research is a brick in its wall. Therefore, art for centuries accumulates values, weeds out the weak, but keeps great, and it has been worrying the audience and audience for hundreds and thousands of years. In science, the path is more direct: the thoughts of each researcher, the facts he has obtained are a piece of the path traveled. There is no road without this meter of asphalt, but it is passed, the road goes further, hence the life span of a scientific work is so small, something around 30-50 years. Such is the fate of the books and works of the brilliant physicists Newton, Maxwell, and even Einstein, who is very close to us. And to get acquainted with the works of geniuses, scientists advise on the contemporaries’ presentations, as time cuts off a brilliant discovery, gives it a new form, even changes its features. In this we must look for the source of the psychological differences of scientific and artistic creativity.
But the scientist sees one area where science and art intersect. This is something that did not exist in the past, which has appeared in recent decades. This area – the rules of human behavior. In the last century, the bearer of moral values was only art. In our century, science shares with art, this time. Modern views on the structure of the universe, and the nature of man himself, put tough conclusions about the responsibility of people for all life on earth. Art also leads to the same conclusions, but it is not so much about evidence as about an emotional show. And that art can make us live thousands of other people’s lives, the scientist sees the most remarkable and unique feature of art. This does not mean that art is the domain of human emotions only; the author cannot agree with the opinion that rationalism unites and dries man. The physicist does not see the rivalry between art and science, they have the same goal – to make people happy.
What explains the fall of the prestige of art and the danger of turning it into a decorator of life? Let’s listen. For many centuries art had only one rival in the struggle for man – religion, now a new rival has emerged, imperceptibly grown and presented, at least equal, before the astonished gaze of artists accustomed to looking at science arrogantly and with disdain. Now literature and art can fulfill their high purpose only then; when they are preconceived, they will understand the vast spiritual world of science if they are guided by the same high level that young people seek and so often find in science. The main pathos of the article is directed towards a radical change in the attitude of art towards the huge, full of quest and exploits of the world of science, to their work, to their thoughts, passions, sufferings and joys.
In the past century, when science, and, after it, technology, were engaged in more or less accessible things, writers, artists could easily throw fruitful ideas to scientists. Now, however, the front of research, at least in the most developed sciences, has plunged into such jungle, which is difficult to do. It is true that the direct fling of ideas, the simplest form of influence on science. If we want to understand the real possibilities of art in this regard, we must study this issue more deeply.
The impact of the scientific and technological revolution on all spheres of our life no one can deny – it is so obvious. But paradoxically, the influence of modern and not only modern science and technology on artistic creativity has been discussed for many years in the special mass press. In the course of the discussion, both fruitful and contradictory, and often opposite points of view are expressed. They are very instructive. The scientific and technological revolution is an invasion of the future into the present, making today’s practical organization of tomorrow, and throughout the world. We are talking here about the unprecedented development of science and technology, means of communication, information, and the growth of the world’s population. The number and levels of all factors reached such values, cannot exist in the same quality, in the same conditions. And the essence here is not in evolution, but in spontaneous development, it’s not just relations between people of different social classes and different countries, but also between all people with the whole world, animate and inanimate, existing from nature and created by people during their of existence.
In the past, literature did not lag far behind the phenomena of technical progress. And what about today? Our time science and technology on the impact on man, his psychology and attitude exceeds his traditional forms of artistic creativity.
As we can see, the global impact of the scientific and technological revolution on all of humanity, except for fiction – human studies, is recognized, although, of course, it is rightly said that its purpose in figurative form is to fully comprehend and reflect the problems of its time.
The scientific and technological revolution, invading all areas of human life, brings us many benefits, and poses new unforeseen complex problems that need to be addressed both nationally and globally. But to ascribe to all of us universal confusion, to scare us with the dominance of scientific rationalism leading to danger, soulless logisation, and perhaps even emotional impoverishment, etc. can only be out of love for the art of big words. All this was needed in order to show with all the passion the important role of recognized art to compensate for the sharply increased importance of abstraction in our mental life, to preserve the scientific integrity of our being, the precious correspondence of reason and feeling to a person. Of course, this idea of compensation does not elevate, but diminishes art, its significance in public life.
In art, as in science, the most life-giving tradition is the eternal search, experiments, craving for analysis and synthesis. Science teaches in a new way, much thinner to look not only at the structure of matter but also at art itself. And finally, the most important thing: the means, purposes of science and art are different, but there is a connection between them. As two parallels, they are coordinated with each other and rush to the future, as if complementing each other, helping to improve the artistic and scientific method. According to apt expression, atomic physics, new mathematics, cybernetics, cosmogony, computer science, and the Internet need more boldness of fantasy and a dream. Art needs knowledge, deep thought.
Stanislav Lem in the distant future high civilization also foresees the inevitability of the growing “deindividualizing role” of technologies and the prevalence of the most realistic type of person and culture.
What place is given to literature and art in this technological civilization? The answer given is clearly disappointing. In a mental experiment, the birth of a great number of artistic talents equal to Shakespeare is allowed. But this oversupply of the geniuses of art will turn into a tragedy for them. In the future technological society, even great artists will become an almost anachronistic phenomenon that can be encouraged and even respected, but not without some grin.
The conclusion is clearly paradoxical. And the point here is, above all, in the amount of money. “One Shakespeare,” writes Lem, “is a magnificent phenomenon, 10 Shakespeare is also not ordinary, but where there are twenty thousand artists with Shakespeare’s talent, there is no longer a single Shakespeare; for it is one thing to compete for the transmission to receivers of their individual way of seeing the world within a small group of creators, and quite another is choking at the entrance to the system of information channels, which looks as funny as it is pitiful. ”
Such a surplus of works of Shakespearean scale, such an avalanche will lead to the fact that all future media will not be able to master them and convey to the mass consumer.
The appearance of twenty thousand Shakespeare will lead to the devaluation of artistic creativity.
3. Conclusion
The main thing is that science in the future technological society will undoubtedly reveal the secrets of man, and therefore the secrets of art will be defeated in its rivalry with science and in the comprehension of human psychology.
What then remains to art? Maybe it will still retain some of its value in the aesthetic development of the world? After all, the fields of activity of science and art do not coincide, but after all, the existence of an obsolete and therefore only incomplete knowledge simultaneously with knowledge comprehending the real state of affairs is impossible. Very unattractive “rationalistic”, “deindividualized”, deprived of all the infinite riches of sensual, emotional human life, cold technological civilization, which is promised to our distant descendants.
What gave us a long-term discussion of researchers of this problem? Its fruitfulness is undoubted. The discussion not only acutely posed one of the most cardinal and urgent problems of interrelation and interaction of art and science – the two most powerful forms of human consciousness and transformation of reality, but also singled out the most complicated problems, which then began to be studied in a more detailed form. Let us listen to the wise words of Goethe: “It is said that Truth is between two opposing opinions. In no case! Between them lies the problem. ”
Thus, to approach the Truth is to explore the problem in its real, historical development.
