Art can be used to explain the world around us, but it is not a requirement as it is for science. Art for science s sake is a whole other story. Rexer argued whether or not the Museum of Natural History should be considered a museum of art history instead. He went on to say that art does not follow nature. The more use and purpose their was for an artifact, the less it was considered a piece of art.
Cultures have a dominat technology that end up shaping their art.
Art was deemed, by Rexer, as the ultimate sign of our power to transform. We take simple insignificant materials and make beings of art out of them as a result. Wechsler, Judith, ed. On Aesthetics in Science. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1978.