Northrop Frye ‘the Motive for Metaphor’
Northrop Frye in ‘The motive for metaphor’ compares science and art. The common element between the two seems to be imagination. In science it becomes the final element and in art the starting point.
In Frye view, a scientist examines the world which we are given to live, scrutinises all the data and attempts at forming certain theories which would underlay the rules governing the world. I doing so, he moves from the known realm, tangible world towards the concepts in his mind, therefore a creation of imagination. The more he approaches the goal, the more he takes advantage of the language of mathematics, which is after all ‘one of the languages imagination’.
On the other hand, an artist sees the world, chooses what strikes him and then with the help of imagination creates a pretend realm. To put it differently, an artist starts with an idea existing in the dimension of his imagination and then draws nearer to the realistic world. He must make his creation as real as possible, therefore he must employ his intellect which through logical planning captures the emotions and converts them into an ordered world of his.
Both a scientist and an artist fall back on intuition and logic in their work. A scientist intuitively undertakes one of the possible streams of his theories and also uses the logic to verify their plausibility. An artist feels what his world should resemble and then with his intellectual resources tries to achieve so.
A scientist and an artist differ in respect as in what way they perceive the world. The science deals with the existing world. It neither takes nor adds anything to it. Whereas, the concern of an artist is the world in one of its realisations, the way the artist wants to see it. The fundamental difference between the two is, however, in their possibility to improve.
The world of science constantly undergoes changes. New theories are being discovered and subsequently new inventions come to existence. As a result, the
In Frye view, a scientist examines the world which we are given to live, scrutinises all the data and attempts at forming certain theories which would underlay the rules governing the world. I doing so, he moves from the known realm, tangible world towards the concepts in his mind, therefore a creation of imagination. The more he approaches the goal, the more he takes advantage of the language of mathematics, which is after all ‘one of the languages imagination’.
On the other hand, an artist sees the world, chooses what strikes him and then with the help of imagination creates a pretend realm. To put it differently, an artist starts with an idea existing in the dimension of his imagination and then draws nearer to the realistic world. He must make his creation as real as possible, therefore he must employ his intellect which through logical planning captures the emotions and converts them into an ordered world of his.
Both a scientist and an artist fall back on intuition and logic in their work. A scientist intuitively undertakes one of the possible streams of his theories and also uses the logic to verify their plausibility. An artist feels what his world should resemble and then with his intellectual resources tries to achieve so.
A scientist and an artist differ in respect as in what way they perceive the world. The science deals with the existing world. It neither takes nor adds anything to it. Whereas, the concern of an artist is the world in one of its realisations, the way the artist wants to see it. The fundamental difference between the two is, however, in their possibility to improve.
The world of science constantly undergoes changes. New theories are being discovered and subsequently new inventions come to existence. As a result, the