I don’t know. I got a great deal of emotional pleasure as a kid, formulating fireworks and various other chemical materials. And, as an adult I was happy when something I formulated in my company was successful.
I can’t speak about art from experience, but it would seem to me that many composers designed their works using quite a bit of reason.
Yes, art is full of reason. Originally, art used to be mainly about beauty (not quite an emotion), but now it seems to be more about “meaning”, as in, “what does this piece mean?” And that is a question of reason. Impressionistic art does seem to be solely for emotional purposes, if I understand it correctly.
Scientists study emotion sometimes. That’s all I got
Science doesn’t “deal” with reason, but it needs reason to be effectively done. Science is about investigating the material world, Art is harder to define or explain, but it appears to be about expressing something. The definition of art is somewhat vague it seems.
I submit, for y’all’s consideration that art deals with emotions and science deals with reason.
There are the people who actually advance science and there are people who just claim to understand the results produced by the people who advance science. I suspect those who actually make the advances have emotions tempered by reason and the pretenders are limited to reason. The majority of “scientists” are in the second category though.
Art does not be tempered by reason so much. Reason may even get in the way.
Relativity seems pretty unreasonable to me actually.
I have come to the end of my months-long journey trying to figure out what art is, so I thought I would add my conclusion in this thread. I believe that art is an enjoyment derived from the detection of patterns (with perhaps some caveats when it comes to abstract art). Basically, it is an “ice cream” for our mind. We evolved to like sugar and fat, and ice cream is the concentrated dose of these two flavours. Art is, then, the concentrated dose of patterns, based on things like sounds, visuals or aspects related to socializing (e.g., novels). There is obviously a very good evolutionary reason why we should feel rewarded upon detecting a patter in nature and what art does is to create artificial patterns in order for us to enjoy the reward from detecting it.
Science is different. Very different. Where art responds to human preferences of detecting patters, science rejects most of our tastes and preferences (except for curiosity) when trying to discover the truth. It’s a difficult task, but judging by the hunger for curiosity and awe of our species and the success of science being able to satisfy our curiosity along with its contribution of providing practical benefits to our everyday lives, I believe we’ll all one day accept that it is the only way ahead.