i think the act of creating art is to go through < blackskimmer > 10/08 11:26:44
some psychological (spiritual?) transformation and the resulting peice ought to induce in others the spurr to go through the same or similar transformation. these transformations can be trivial or profound! usually having to do with the meaty thick paradox of what it is to be a birthing/dying/creative individual/cooperating member of society..seemingly infinite potential/finitely mortal/trivially mortal...
not all art achieves this of course! much of it is lazy or basically technical exercises.
i don't think the primary role of science is to go through this kind of transformation, though, often in math and science you will have various epiphanies which are species of this transformation. also the ultimate goad to doing science for many, is a LOVE for this real universe, enough to get to know it on its own terms, without our anthropomorphic ideas, desires fears greeds getting inthe way.
yet, to want to KNOW nature on those terms, to puzzle out that mystery, the NEED to do that, is a very human need. and to teach someone how to do that to enter into that kind of relationship with nature will invoke in them a psychological transformation as i described above. the way you do that teaching... what kind of poem do you write to convince someone... convince someone that they want to know nature on that level... how do you convince? how do you entice? Is it NATURE herself in enticing us to want to know her as she truly is, the one performing the art with her works? surely she did that number on me!