The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each.
The speaker claims that the function of science is to reassure and the purpose of art is to upset. In his/her point of view, the function of science and art is opposite and each plays its role without intersection. As far as I am concerned, science and art have the function of both reassuring and upsetting audience.
It is obvious that when saying about science the function of reassuring human being come to mind. Science, as well as technology, serves to interpret us truce laying behind the image of the complexity of myriads of things in the world so that we, human beings, perform the right method and follow the exact steps according to nature's way to do stuff accurately and effectively. It is the supple of electricity that avoid us groping about in the flicking candle; it is the invention of plane that realize the lasting dream of our forerunners to fly like birds; it is the progress in the medical science that we are sure to take prescriptions under the direction of doctors. Each illustrates the point that science can reassure us human beings.
I agree that the very purpose of giants when aiming at hosts of improvement in all scientific discipline is to reassure and benefit us. Unfortunately it does not always go on its arranged way. Even the exact discovery of science can bring upsetting impulse on human beings. Suppose in the old days, when Copernicus was burned in the fire, how we are upset by the absurd judgment of the Inquisition to truth that Copernicus had found, but it impulse the officers of the Religion to the extent just as well as it reassure the latter researchers supporting him. Furthermore, how about the abuse of science? The scientific research in Chemistry attributes to the invention of chemical weapons, which killed numberless lives in the wars. By the same token, the original thinking of provide the human beings more powerful resource directly lead to the huge threaten of atomic bomb, and so as to make us living the fear of nuclear era. In that matter, how can we say that the science is only to reassure?
When it comes to the realm of art, it is the same. We even cannot say that the main function of art is to upset. On the contrary, numbers of art pieces show us feeling of peace. The renaissance famous portraiture, Mona Lisa, give us a silent, gentle woman with beautiful smile. Beethoven¡¯s moonlight exhibits us a smooth feeling which can easily mitigate people when they are upset, and the same with the ballet swan lake. Also, one can easily conclude remember that art can bring us feeling of appease no more than take a look at a little child looking a fair tale, such as ¡°The Princess and the Pea¡± and ¡°The Ugly Duckling.¡±. More often or not, emerging in the world of fair that art create, little child fall into sleep with satisfactory appease. And thus, the art provide us pleasure and appease.
Admittedly, also there are some great art works which upset us. The thick, energetic brushstrokes in ¡°Crows in the Wheat fields¡± by Van Gogh suggest turbulence. Dark birds hover in a brilliant blue sky over golden fields. The infusion of black darkens the blue of the sky and evokes a mood of pessimism that seems to reflect the artist¡¯s self-doubt and loneliness, which he described in letters to his brother. The abstract painting Pigeon and Guernica by Picasso shows us the same feeling of upset and unease.
In sum, the function of science is sure to reassure us human beings but never overshadow the opposite effect of upsetting people. As for art, some arts can bring upsetting affects while some can present appease and so as to reassure us.