Today we are looking at the connection between Art and Science, and possibly combining the two into an awesome combo (the whole is greater than the individual parts). The first article is titled “Art as a Way of Knowing.” Just as place-based education was the thing in the previous reflection, now it is art+science. The article asserts that ‘art is a fundamental part of being human,’ whereas ‘it is rarely part of discussions for teaching and learning.’ The argument of the article is that learning through art is a serious form of interacting with the world. In fact, removing this element from primary school education is said to have compromised children’s learning potential. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but in many cases the presence of diversity (in learning and in the sciences) results in a more healthy and resilient environment.
The second article, called “Art of the Brain,” is an exploration into what makes art ‘art’ and what makes science ‘science’. The cover picture depicts the brain of a genetically-modified mouse that is able to give off a spectrum of colors, very much resembling abstract or modern art. It is debated whether this is truly art, since it was intended for scientific purposes. The author comes up with four hypotheses and the corresponding conclusions. The first is this: science is done for a scientific purpose; art, for an artistic one. What does it mean for something to be art? One way is if the artist declares it so. On the other hand, the scientist does not set out to make art; he sets out to do science. The distinction of purpose, though present, is blurry.
The second hypothesis is that science uses a prescribed method, whereas art does not. It’s obvious that an artist does not have to repeat the same work over and over before viewers see truth in it (meanwhile an experiment must be repeated many times before it can be said that the hypothesis truly supports the results). Another point about truth is that art doesn’t set out to prove or explain things – it is all about different viewpoints, ideologies, and systems of belief. However, it has been shown that artists have methodologies that they follow, and scientists don’t all follow the same method, so this hypothesis is not very well-founded.
The third hypothesis is that science simplifies things, whereas art renders their complexity. If science was so simple, then why are primary school students having so much trouble with it? On the other hand, some modern art is pretty darn simple (anyone seen the black box?), and on occasion seeks to obfuscate the subject.
The accepted hypothesis by the author is that: Science always deals with reality. Art does not always. In fact, Descartes proved that everything we experience through our senses is an illusion; that all images are a figment of our imagination. The colors that we see are not special; they are just a small segment of a broad spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies. It may be instead that science and art really are the same; they seek to explore the limits of what we can sense, what we can experience, what we can explore. In that sense, they just cover different regions of the same space. The bridge between them is what’s left to be established.
