What Scientists and Philosophers Get Wrong about Art | Big Think.
What Scientists and Philosophers Get Wrong about Art
New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: https://bigth.ink/Edge
———————————————————————————-
When looking for greater fulfillment in life, people often look to volunteer opportunities offered through work.Giving back to the community is valuable work. But to find the right volunteer fit, it’s important to think about how much time you have, the experience you want, and the growth you’re looking for.To get the most fulfillment out of your volunteer experience, focus on the organization. If you wouldn’t want to work there, it might not be the right fit for you.
———————————————————————————-
AARON HURST:
Aaron Hurst is a globally recognized entrepreneur who works to create communities that are empowered to realize their potential. He is the CEO of Imperative, a B Corp advocating for Purpose-Oriented Workers and supporting the organizations that embrace them. Hurst is the author of The Purpose Economy (2014) and a regular advisor and thought partner for many global brands.
———————————————————————————-
TRANSCRIPT:
AARON HURST: So, a lot of people looking to be more fulfilled in their lives and work look to volunteering, doing service out in the community, as a way to do that. And it is a terrific way to do it. I want to share a little advice with you, though, about how to approach that, given the work I’ve done with tens of thousands of people and with leading companies around the world building corporate volunteer programs because I think most people get volunteering wrong. It can’t truly be a supplement for getting fulfillment at work. A lot of companies, a lot of individuals, say, look, I’m not fulfilled at work. I’ll volunteer and get that need met outside of work. And this is really the wrong approach because we spend the majority of our time at work.
And we’ve seen our research. If you’re not fulfilled in work, you’re not going to be fulfilled in your life overall. So the first step I recommend is before you jump into volunteering, think about what could you be doing today to make your current work more fulfilling? How could you be boosting your fulfillment? And part of that might be thinking about, how could I volunteer internally? How could I help with sustainability? How can I help mentor people who are younger than I am in the organization? How could I help do the work that’s meaningful to me inside the organization? Because that’s actually going to be much more gratifying for you most of the time than doing volunteer work.
That said, it’s still incredibly valuable to do work in the community. But there’s so many different ways to volunteer. And a lot of people who are new to volunteering just sort of jump on whatever they hear in a company email, what they see a company doing, instead of really being thoughtful about what is it that matters to them and what’s going to be a fulfilling volunteer experience for them.
There’s a number of dimensions to volunteering that I just want to go through to help you think through what might be the right fit for you at this time. One of the most important and challenging parts about volunteering is making the time to volunteer. So as you’re thinking about volunteering, really think about how much time do you have and what kind of time is that? And this is both a question of what time during the day or during the week can you do it? It’s how much time? And is that time that you can do from your desk at work, or is this time where you’re actually able to go out and be in the community? This is a really important variable because it really narrows what you can do in terms of volunteering.
The second piece, which really I recommend, you know, thinking about somewhat in contrast to the first piece around how much time do you have, is really about what do you want to get out of the volunteering? Because a lot of times when you just think about how much time you have, you’re doing that based on the assumption that you’re going to get a certain value out of volunteering. But if you actually think about all the different ways volunteering can help you, you may find you have more time than you thought. So what are the things you want to get out of volunteering? What are the relationships that you want to build? And that could be with existing co-workers. It could be people in your field. It could be with people in the community. What are the relationships you want to build?
And those might be to help your career. They might be to be more connected to your community. What is the impact that you actually want to make? What would make you fe…
For the full transcript, check out https://bigthink.com/videos/volunteer-work
@fineartist7710
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
…good try
@aje7183
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Damn!! man, no need for all the word play. the definition is simple: art is any form of expression that aims for unity.
i thought it through..
@franciscocastrorichter7316
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
I understand that Alva Noë is a very respectable and scientifically informed philosopher. Nonetheless, I feel most of this talk is a bunch of very counterinformative cliches about what art is. I agree that probably most scientists and philosophers (specially analytic philosophers), although very good in some important tasks, perhaps have understimated the power of art as an informative medium about how the human mind works, or what are the concrete conditions which enable its particular functioning (not only art, but many other parts of culture as well, like politics and popular culture). It is probable that in the future, art may become a (more) legitimate empirical arena for scientific and philosophical appreciation and discussion, as long as it can illuminate with remarkable strenght and precision how we actually relate to the world (how we represent it) and how we relate to each other and ourselves (take, for example, the exciting way in which Galen Strawson, in Aeon Magazine, informs his discussion against many cognitive scientist and philosophers on the topic of personal identity using mainly literature examples; similarly, if you take Ingmar Bergman's Persona you can easily witness the classic issues about the continuity and limits of personal identity).
I agree with Anston [Music] in that we can understand art as some kind of cognitive/emotional and neurally based process, although I think that that is not very informative either, at least not by itself. Probably there can be no general definition of art, as philosophers and artists themselves have noticed. Nonetheless, we can probably identify different (sometimes intertwined) functions which art can serve (emotional expression/evocation and many forms of representations, with indefinitely many means and purposes aswell); and of course many of those functions overlap with the functions of other cultural devices; science, politics, journalism and so on; as many people have been realizing thoughout the lasts centuries until today. Thank you for these vids!
@mikegoss1231
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Good art isn't made with anyone in mind. You get an idea/image in your mind and you have to see it made. Then you make it. The thrill is short lived. But worth the effort.
@shroomo9000
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
don't understand why there's all those dislikes. Geeza was sound and made a lot of sense. The title of the video was misleading in that the video wasn't about what scientists and philosophers get wrong… for me, it encouraged me to realise and understand that art is one of these things that is truly in-explainable in that it can be and mean anything for anyone whatever it is.
@cperez1000
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
In my view this guy is just annoying… Sorry, but that's the truth.
@JerettOlson
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
He is putting way too much thought into to this. People create are because they have a desire to express themselves and communicate that to world.
@Adoomy712
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
I think Art is: an aim to crystallize wonder, novelty, passion and beauty into physical reality. And, like mentioned here, it does unveil or reveal our evocative nature. A novel emotional expression which involves our senses in new ways. It deepens our appreciation. It reveals the beauty and wonder, in poetic and colorful abstractions. It can bring us new light, help us welcome darkness, reinvigorate our color. It brings us out of our self to dance in tune with all of these fantastic vibrations. With the elemental and essential qualities of Life, and how we truly feel.
@hannahdemon
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Didn't seem particularly informative at all.
@5708R
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
There are many philosophers and authors who hold a similar view, except they express is much more coherently.
@nitramrot
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Post-modernist mumbo jumbo, trying to make sense of his irrational believes in art. Get the f*** out of here!
@blt4life112
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
I like how he uses "they" when speaking of errors and "we" when speaking of the more positive things.
@radjuju
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
If Noe is an actual philosopher then he commits a gross blunder by overlooking the point of German Idealism–19th Century philosophy, where the Idealists had already came to the conclusion that art should be like philosophy and philosophy should be like art. We needn't look any further than the Romantic artists such as Goethe, Novalis, Holderlin, Beethoven, Bach, Koch and many others to see that these men were offering a greater insight and understanding of humanity through dasein–that is discovery, revealing and disclosure. The works of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were clearly influenced by the Romantics to such a degree that their writings were just as poetic as they were philosophical. Additionally, both Marx and Heidegger wrote at great lengths on the value of art/craftsmanship and technology in relation to both individuals and society as a whole, which is the central point of Noe's argument. In conclusion, there's honestly no need to read Noe's book if this video is a testimony of what it's about unless he offers something new. My advice just read Heidegger's "Basic Writings" or "The Question Concerning Technology."
@anthonydimichele837
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Art *modern & post-modern~ is EZ to make. I have been a professional artist and art instructor all my adult life. I would walk into museums and see garbage, scribbles in frames, shit on a shingle, etc. ~ all the while I was instructing sight impaired adults in painting and printmaking. Their work, hands down, was far more interesting than what I saw in the temples of artistic achievement! ha! Orson Welles in his last interview when asked to what he attributed his great success, said: " Luck. That's the big secret to most successes but of course no one who is successful will readily say so." (actually a paraphrase despite quotes). I have come to think that art today exists for critics and other useless people in like 'professions' to evaluate, rank, interpret, hype and sell, which is to say profit from. Octavio Paz, the great poet and essayist, wrote about the co-option of art and literature by market forces in a book called: The Other Voice. I highly recommend it. Art has nothing to do with money, or rather when it does, it runs the risk of becoming trite and faddish (As long as it sells!). But dumb artwork requires a dumber audience. gulp. Maybe one brought up on tee vee, hollywood movies and gadgetry?
@SolusBatty
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
There is this one great thing my aesthetics professor told me. And that is that we should all try ourselves at art. And he meant it on an amateur level. I think it is similar to this videos point, creation is a very human trait and we shouldnt forgo it thinking it is something that necessitates expertise. Put simply, you will feel good creating anything.
@dominicroliz2891
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Modern art was a social experiment to see if people would pay a lot of money for objects that had no intrinsic value.
@woodysagan424
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
what a load off Bull..
@ScarProxy
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
refer to the video ( Richard Feynman – ode of a flower )
@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Could we be 'makers' because the Universe is a continuum of continuous creation or energy exchange?
@jimmybombimmy
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
People are hating on this guy because they obviously read the title of the video and assumed straight away that it was the point he was trying to make. From what I see it wasn't that black and white. I very much doubt he chose to title the video as such, he just stated opinions and Big Think decided to put a clickbait title that took it out of proportion.
Everyone seems to have just read the title and when his points didn't coincide with the expectations they had, they shat all over it.
From what I gathered, a more apt title for the video would have been 'Why Art is it's own Philosophical Practice" but I wonder if that would have led to as many comments.
@madforlorn
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Here's a compiled list of the things he is trying to convey:
@ruskie8103
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Quit featuring this dumb ass
@Unclenate1000
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Also fuck whoever it is that decided i must take a fine art in order to finish my political science major. No logic there, except of course greed perhaps.
@Unclenate1000
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
I really hated being dragged into a discussion about what makes something beautiful in my philosophy course. What makes something beautiful basically has to do with how it triggers a certain reaction in the human mind/brain, which just so happens to involve the subjects of neurology and psychology, not philosophy.
@NocturnalSlug
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
… Yeah, this guy is a tosser, can we not have him on again?
@seanwebb605
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Bah. It isn't art if it has no meaning to those who experience it.
@aslemos2009
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Oh, boy. How do our neanderthalian heritage shows in the laconic remarks of those that "defend" science against ghosts that mostly live in their own heads. Unargumentative remarks, filled with the (desperately sought for) authority of the crowds. And the more they get the audience of their own kind, the more sincere they get, the more ideological they sound.
@Malukaluna
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
ITT: A bunch of non-artists perfectly demonstrating what this man was talking about. Granted there haven been a lot of click bait titles and talks that have been popping up in this channel. But the point this man makes is a good one. If all art can be explained via science (science we are acquainted with now) there would be no point in exploring it. It would be redundant. Of course looking at art and attempting to understand it through scientific and philosophical analysis is important and certainly beneficial to the understanding, but a lot of us in the comments are very definitively asserting the claim that ALL aspects of art can be explained as such. I'll go on a limb and guess that majority of you aren't artists in at least a semi-profesional regard. You haven't practiced it to a semi-pro level, you haven't created works, you haven't presented works, nor have you wrote critiques and analysis of various works. Just like there are biologists, whom know more about biology than majority of people, aeronautical engineers, whom know more about the mechanics of planes and various air/spacecrafts, the are artists, whom in their respective field take the authoritative stance on their specialisation. Please don't be so quick to blatantly make such definitive statements regarding the arts.
I'm an ex-modern dancer (a style of dance that was birthed in response to restrictions found in ballet). And thus will pose an argument in my field of knowledge. My argument: Science and Philosophy are limited to the expansion of and exploration of the arts. Prior to the works of Martha Graham (mother of modern dance, whom I'll touch on later) Ballet was the most wide spread dance in Europe and America. It was seen as one of the epitome of beauty in dance. Characterised by strong legs, with finesse mirroring those of our arms, with a torso held high and tall, exuding energy from the middle of the torso out to the tips of our hands and feet, and an almost weightlessness kind of feel when observing it from the audience. Very fitting as it was birthed by the aristocrats and thus has mannerisms and language mirroring that of it's origins.
BADUM-PA – insert scientist and philosopher here. While I am neither, I'd imagine they'd make speculations on how and why it's seen unanimously as so beautiful.
The long lines formed by our limbs, demonstrate beauty unfounded in other areas of movement. A weightlessness that is almost unnatural it seems like they're floating. Yada, yada, yada. Ballet was not only found in Western civilisation but had soon spread to the east as well.
Then came Martha Graham, tho not one of the first who made an attempt to rebel against the aesthetics commonplace in ballet, she is unanimously the most successful and impactful (many of her students further contributed to the development of modern dance, which birth much of the foundation seen in contemporary dance today). Graham was like FUCK IT. Straight, flowing lines in ballet. NAW. Gender assigned roles. NAW. Upright weightlessness. NAW. So much of the movement in her dance were polar opposites of what was considered "beautiful" in ballet. She rejected the pulling up of the body and embraced gravity, the weight of the body was not denied, she employed juxtaposition of the spine and made movement radiating from various parts of the body. Pointed feet in ballet? NAH. She purposefully used flexed feet in direct opposition to that. One of the most distinguishable elements of her dance was her use of breath. In ballet breathe is used "to" dance, it is used to fuel the body in order to generate the desired movement. Graham, you see was a G. Instead of it being a slave to the dance, it was fully embraced. Breath was used to contract and release, allowing much of the movement to be dictated by the breathing, an inevitable part of human life. And this created something so beautiful never seen before. Because of her use on contraction and release, it mirrored the human body, and thusly the human emotion. Instead of attempting to fit such a wide range of emotions in a rigid artistic structure (ballet), it allowed the body to move as see fit. It was more "natural", and there by more relatable to the audience. While movement in ballet was a strive for aesthetic perfection, Graham's dances were a strive for the human experience. Both breath taking in their own ways.
Would this new style of dance have emerged through science and philosophy? Had scientists conducted experiments in the 1800s, and polled people of what movements they found beautiful and pleasing to the eye, it most likely would've fit in the aesthetics parallel to that of ballet. It wasn't until Graham took a leap, broke away from tradition and through dance found a new type of movement that was embraced by the world. Granted in the beginning it wasn't well received at all, as it was too different. It's through individuals like Graham whom create works which are contrasting, different, and new that we humans can further expand our appreciation of various ways of movement. This can't be done via sciences, or philosophy. You can't talk someone into appreciating Graham's work. You have to let them see it, view it, internalise it. The further evolution of all art styles can only be accomplished by DOING IT.
@MSHKYT
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
That was a very interesting video. I agree. Art doesn't get the respect it deserves from scientifically minded people. Artists are very good at making things. Art is very thought provoking. Only problem I see is it's not very rational by the normal standard of rational. You just get your paint brush or whatever your instrument is and create art. It does reveal things about ourselves — what the fuck is going on under the surface of working memory. That is awesome! Thanks for the video. I very much appreciate how you helped me see the light!
The other posters on here are being close minded and pretentious. Art is never going to be calculus, but that does not mean it has no value to humanity. Keep in mind that Leonardo De Vinci was an artist. I heard his IQ was over 150.
I am an artist too. We're all artists!
@HONORGUARD308
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Art is good, but this guy is way over stating it.
I assume he just feel inadequate as an artist that probably interacts with scientist and philosophers. . .
Science is a real tool of mankind, art is just. . .something for pleasure, like drugs or alcohol. But we don't call drugs and alcohol a tool.
@stevevondoom4140
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
we don't have to explain our art to you… 😉
@atypical_moto
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
This isn't the interview to get a grant for my art class?…
@shipwreck9146
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 pm
Lets be honest, philosophers are people who failed at everything else, so they decided to go into a field that's no longer necessary in our society. The only reason to become a philosopher, is so that you can teach philosophy. I'm not saying philosophers aren't smart, I'm just saying that their intelligence is wasted in a field with no merit.
Comments are closed.