Diderot+and+d'Alembert+vs.+Sara+on+Art

Diderot and d'Alembert begin this article on art by comparing art to science. They believe that men observe the world and make inferences, which turn into science or art. Originally, I disagreed because I did not see how science and art could be compared, however, now I think that both science and art are created in the same way, off of inferences, and are therefore similar in that way. However, in the second paragraph they discuss how art leads to an action. I disagree with this statement as I think that art is more often a reaction then something that creates the action. Additionally, they talk about how art is created with either the mind or the hand, yet, I think that all art requires both. Technically, the hand is needed to create whatever the art may be, while the mind is also technically needed to process the act of making the art. The authors later state that the knowledge of geometry by an artist could detract the quality of their work. This is very subjective, as the knowledge of geometry is required for some art. I feel as though Diderot and d'Alembert contradict themselves because they are negative towards geometry yet later, they expresses that perfection is good. This idea is later touched upon when they mention the importance in the quality of the materials. Yes, I agree that high quality materials can help the artist in creating a great piece, however, some art does not depend on the quality of the material. I think that Diderot and d'Alembert have a narrow and objective view of art, therefore, their article excludes many qualities that I believe art to have. Although this may appear over-simplified, the point of this article to define art and compare it to science, while the idea of attempting to define art is completely contradictory to my definition of art.