Science vs. Art in Freud and Muybridge
After first reading Freud's psychoanalyses, I was confused as to why we read
them. After having previously discussed Muybridge's work and its
classification on the science-pornography gradient, I thought of ways to
relate these two "scientists".
1) We could compare these two studies to determine how scientific each of
them is. As many of us found out through research, Muybridge often
distorted his images subjectively to increase continuity. Also, some of us
questioned whether or not there was pornographic intent in the
photography. Personally, I believe that Muybridge's work was rooted in science (Stanford's bet), but his artistic style came out in his product. What could one really learn from his images, since, after all, the multiple camera angles show the same image in only a slightly different configuration? Since there is no constant of
relativity, what science can we gain from a collection of nude models running?
On a similar note, we discussed the scientific authenticity of Freud's
psychoanalyses in class today. While he approached his theories very
academically and with many scientific methods, a major flaw in Freud's work
is a lack of testability. In many of the social sciences, theories cannot be
proved right or wrong, which leaves uncertainties in any situation. Some of
Freud's theories about infant sexuality that we read about seem legitimate,
but the fact that the subject of the study, Little Hans, was
unscientifically provoked discredits Freud’s results. Therefore, it seems like Muybridge's work and
Freud's studies are actually quite similar in their scientific validity, or
lack thereof.
2) On the other hand, we could use Freud’s theories of infant sexuality to determine Muybridge’s motivations in his photographic studies. While we haven’t learned too much about Freud from only 2 essays, it seems like Freud would probably cite some repressed desire as an infant for sexual stimulation. Whatever the reason, I am relatively confident that Freud could find someway to claim that Muybridge’s photos are definitely pornographic. However, I think we would need to read more about Freud’s philosophies to be sure.
Looking at these two “scientists”, what we can learn most from their experiments is that fact that science is based in art. That is, in any scientific study, there is definitely an art to performing it. In Muybridge’s case, there is an actual artistic value to his product. In Freud’s case, there is an art or skill to designing his case study to produce a significant result that will fit into his theories. Essentially, science is rooted in art and art is rooted in science. At some point in the development of either, we can find a point where the two branches of the experiment overlap.
them. After having previously discussed Muybridge's work and its
classification on the science-pornography gradient, I thought of ways to
relate these two "scientists".
1) We could compare these two studies to determine how scientific each of
them is. As many of us found out through research, Muybridge often
distorted his images subjectively to increase continuity. Also, some of us
questioned whether or not there was pornographic intent in the
photography. Personally, I believe that Muybridge's work was rooted in science (Stanford's bet), but his artistic style came out in his product. What could one really learn from his images, since, after all, the multiple camera angles show the same image in only a slightly different configuration? Since there is no constant of
relativity, what science can we gain from a collection of nude models running?
On a similar note, we discussed the scientific authenticity of Freud's
psychoanalyses in class today. While he approached his theories very
academically and with many scientific methods, a major flaw in Freud's work
is a lack of testability. In many of the social sciences, theories cannot be
proved right or wrong, which leaves uncertainties in any situation. Some of
Freud's theories about infant sexuality that we read about seem legitimate,
but the fact that the subject of the study, Little Hans, was
unscientifically provoked discredits Freud’s results. Therefore, it seems like Muybridge's work and
Freud's studies are actually quite similar in their scientific validity, or
lack thereof.
2) On the other hand, we could use Freud’s theories of infant sexuality to determine Muybridge’s motivations in his photographic studies. While we haven’t learned too much about Freud from only 2 essays, it seems like Freud would probably cite some repressed desire as an infant for sexual stimulation. Whatever the reason, I am relatively confident that Freud could find someway to claim that Muybridge’s photos are definitely pornographic. However, I think we would need to read more about Freud’s philosophies to be sure.
Looking at these two “scientists”, what we can learn most from their experiments is that fact that science is based in art. That is, in any scientific study, there is definitely an art to performing it. In Muybridge’s case, there is an actual artistic value to his product. In Freud’s case, there is an art or skill to designing his case study to produce a significant result that will fit into his theories. Essentially, science is rooted in art and art is rooted in science. At some point in the development of either, we can find a point where the two branches of the experiment overlap.
posted by Anonymous at 3:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home