In “The Art of the Brain”, author Ashley Taylor attempts to discover the separation of art and science, which, according to the conference report of “Art As A Way of Knowing”, have been intertwined for ages, citing Leonardo DaVinci as an example (pp. 6).
I do agree that art – which was not defined in either article (so I’m going to assume it’s the arts, or “artsy” things) – is helpful to science learning. I remember being told as a child that learning an instrument made you smarter (or made other areas of learning easier for you). This is similar to the ideas explored in the conference summary; “We sought to understand and to articulate how art as a cultural tool to advance human insight and understanding operates to support learning, particularly in the domain of science” (pp 6). The conference members are looking to see if art Art can provide you with a mindset that contributes to learning science and math. In particular, music is very creative and emotional, but by learning musical notation, rhythm, and the technical aspects of using an instrument, one is thinking in a more scientific manner. By combining the two (the art and science sides of music), the perhaps the players brain is learning to use both types of thinking, perception, or action simultaneously.
In Taylor’s article, she tries to find the dividing line between science through the classic method of deduction (hypothesis-based). At the end of her article, she concludes, “….fundamentally, the distinction between art and science is so difficult [because i]t deals with the nature of reality. Despite all the exceptions, and imagination required to come up with hypotheses about the unknown, we think of science as being grounded in reality… we associate art with creativity and the imagination” (pp. 10). This is a good observation; there seems to be a belief that science is straight-edged, factual, and about provable truths, whereas art is a product of molding make-believe. This could correlate with the hypothesis I though Taylor would have tried: The arts convey more emotion through their output than science does. Emotion can drive science; for example, researchers who search for cures may be driven by their love for humanity. However, it is not so much in the output. I find it difficult to believe that people look at a bottle of Tylenol and think about their emotional link to it, except maybe relief or gratitude. While “Brainbow” can be considered an exception, it can also be considered a combination of art and science, therefore being more emotionally accessible than products of “strict” or “pure” science.
In response to the questions:
1. What are some commonalities between art and science?
Science and art both require technique, as mentioned in Taylor’s article (pp. 7 – 8). as well as recognizing that art contributes to learning and is not some dumb hobby, or that creativity is not unintellectual, as discussed in the conference summary. These notions were wonderful to read. As somebody who identifies more with the arts, it can be annoying to have people view my creativity as something that does not need any technique or intellect, that creativity and its products are just natural. Sure, writing is natural to me, but if I simply wrote without thinking of characters, plot arcs, how to utilize literary elements, which words have the right connotation in what context, whether or not the medium and length I’ve chosen is good for a particular story, and of course, the dreaded proofreading. Writing – or painting, or drawing, or singing, or dancing – is not just emotion. It is emotion channeled, and even most of that “raw emotion” you see in artistic works is not raw, it’s powerful after working on its delivery multiple times. Yet, the technique and the smarts for an art is not required to produce something; it is just better if they’re involved. Similarly, simple science – for example, observing nature or using common technology – is accessible to most people; but technique and knowledge are required to produce complex research and experiment.
2. What are your connections to art and how might this connect you to science?
I am a storyteller; that is, I am a poet, a filmmaker, a prose writer, and a novice urban word performer. I do not think that most of my storytelling techniques are intertwined with science, although they may involve or relate to science sometimes. However, filmmaking is definitely more scientific than I anticipated. I expected to deal with technology when editing film, but cinematography – and I assume sound – is a difficult field. I have to keep track of the aperture, the amount of light in the room, the light sensitivity of the film, the rate at which we’re shooting, and the relationship between all these factors. Cinematography has been more “science-y” than I thought it would be, and I am in an introductory class! As I continue to learn more about cinematography – and as I mentioned, sound production – I should learn more about the science behind the field.
Before I end this reflection, I would like to share this urban word poem that, while not a fusion of science and art, takes inspiration from science and uses scientific facts to create this piece:
