The article, Art As a Way of Knowing, talks about a conference that was held, under the same name. Its purpose was to gather artists, scientists and educators to think about history and art as conduits into inquiring and questioning about the natural world. It was a conference that was interested art practice relating to public engagements with science, including programs for children in community based organizations, schools, museums and other learning environments.
I liked that the conference was a discussion about the role of art in learning and in science learning, that it can be used as a form of inquiry and that it discussed on ways that artists are working in science and interdisciplinary contexts presently, including that of informal public learning environments. I liked that the conference was one that shifted away from comparing art and science and instead concentrated on how the arts expands our engagement and comprehension of the natural worlds. Its good to hear that conferences about art and science are doing more than just discussing what the similarities and differences are between the two areas and are actually trying to think how this may be a medium through which science learning can be improved and enhanced.
I agreed with the article when it said that art is rarely talked about in conversations about learning and teaching and when it is, it is discussed in relation to something artistic. There are many people that believe art as something that does not actually teach anything or is not something that someone can learn something from. There is less and less funding for the arts in schools as more money is being used to fund scientific education. However, I think people should really think about the potential benefits that art can have on learning and science learning. One thing I like about this conference is that it sought to understand and articulate how art as a tool to advance human insight can be used to support learning and in particular learning in science.
I like the list towards the end of the article that demonstrates the benefits of art and how essential it is to learning. This list includes that art challenges habits and certitude, frames familiar problems in new ways, invites participation and engages all the senses. I think what struck me the most that artists and scientists pursue the big questions of their times. This is true, just that these two groups may pursue them in different ways, and perhaps, at times in similar ways.
It was interesting to learn about art and science in the article, The Art of the Brain, by Ashley Taylor. I enjoyed learning about the different hypotheses and the conclusions drawn from them. The first one is that science is done for scientific purpose; art is done for an artistic one and the conclusion is that the distinction becomes blurry. Lichtman makes an argument that artistic and scientific purposes are equivalent. In one way, they both seek to try to understand something. Artists, like scientists, are focused on a particular idea that they want to understand and their art is about a particular thing.
The second hypothesis in the article is that science uses a prescribed method and art does not. This is false because artists also have methods, perhaps not set method like the scientific method, but they do follow some rules. It is also false because sometimes scientists don’t follow prescribed methods.
The third hypothesis is that science simplifies things and art renders their complexity. This is a false hypothesis because science can also appreciate complexity. Often times, when one is trying to learn something in science, more questions are raised than answered. Science is not always so simple. We may find answers to some things, but in finding those answers we also may have more questions.
The fourth hypothesis that I learned about is that science is some notion of right and wrong, whereas art is just art. In the article, it seems to say that there right and wrong hold much over science. In science, everything is up for debate. However, in art, according to the article, it seems that right and wrong don’t particularly belong. It seems that the author tends to shift away from logic and reasoning and more towards instinct and feeling.
Overall, it was very fascinating to learn about science and art bases on someone else’s point of view. The article was constructed in an interesting way; it was formatted so that there were hypotheses, information that was against or supporting that hypothesis and then a conclusion after each one. In the end, the author states that this may not be the best approach to this topic because it leaves the author unsatisfied. There are just some things that are not explained well enough using hypotheses and conclusions.
