scientists,+scholars,+practitioners+and+artists

=Controversial Discussion= (Not to seek for the best argument but to express emotions and to live conflicts by shaping, scratching, fighting.)

Despite our motive "passionately flexible about art" it seems necessary to me to differentiate the use of art by scientists, scholars, practitioners and artists. This introduction shows already an interessting mistake. Because artists don't use art, they create art. If there would be no artists, there would be no art to inspire scientists, scholars and practitioners, they could not speak about, develop theories, perceptions, metaphors, apply artistic skills and crafts. I assert that there is an immense gap which divides by their incompatibility scientists, scholars and practitioners on the one side from the artists on the other side. (transico)

This is a very strong statement. 1. Many scientists (include academics here also) get on with their work successfully without any art or artists for inspiration or anything else. 2. The same applies for most business people. 3. Scientists and business people may be interested in art as part of their personal/social life, but that does not necessarily mean they want or are able to connect that personal/social dimension of art with their science or business. 4. A scientist or a businessperson can be "artful" without being an artist or even knowing an artist. 5. It is possible for art, science and business to inform and stimulate each other, but I'm not convinced that anyone should particularly set out to achieve this. 6. Can we possibly speak in aggregate about artists, scientists and business people? Taking artists, the vast majority of artists are amateur artists. There are only a few professional artists, and I doubt even all of these think or behave the same way. 7. Actually I end up agreeing with JB "there is an immense gap". It's just that I don't see any problem in that gap! CH

That differentiation is a tricky response! Very savvy! It indicades that the context which I supposed as evident must be defined. The target of the statement is AACORN. I would not see any problem in that gab either, if that gab would be consciously perceived (in the same way) by all AACORN members. (transico)