The two articles “The Art of the Brain” and “Art as a way of Knowing” both have to do with how understand and analyzing art can be viewed as a scientific process and how art and science are so greatly interwoven that some will argue that art and science are one in the same. The article, Art of the Brain states that art is done so that people can view the art and understand or perhaps learn something new about the art. Immediately, this sounds like a scientific journey, where something previously unknown is observed, analyzed, interpreted and then understood to a higher degree. There are several hypotheses in the article that contrast art and science in their respective complexities and how “art renders complexity” while science is viewed through a very narrow lense with perhaps a more direct path. In my mind I pictured the TED talk we watched in class about a month ago where a route from A to B was drawn and another less direct route was drawn from A that led to C. I felt like in this way C was the “artistic” approach because it had encompassed several forks and turns but inevitably led to some answer, regardless if it was the same answer that B held.
The other article, Art as a way of Knowing, is primarily trying to explain how art is just as important in terms of learning as science is. I agree with the notion stated in both articles that art and science are so alike but also believe that the ways that people learn from both differ greatly. When looking at art, your mind opens up and ideas formulate and try to explain what exactly you are looking at. Science on the other hand can be looked at more pragmatically, where facts and widely accepted theories are trying to be accepted by learners through studious efforts.

The article “Art as a Way of Knowing” is about a conference that took place to discuss the topic of inquiry through art. The conference was about how art can be used to teach many topics, and to create interest in many subjects. The way art does this is by forcing the student to interact with the world. Art is visual, auditory and emotional, all things that require being involved with the environment and space. Art is also very personal, and personal learning and the best and most effective type.

The second article we read, “The Art of the Brain”, asks the important question, “is there art in the science?” The article discusses the possible differences between the two fields of science and art. Hypothesis one was about the motive behind the image. Artists create images so that they can create art, scientists create images to convey scientific knowledge. But in reality, they both create images that give over a lesson to the viewer. Hypothesis two is that science is regulated and methodical, and art is not. But this also is untrue, because artists use methods to create things. They may not be as regulated as those of scientists, but there are methods nonetheless. The third hypothesis is that art promotes complexity and depth, while science just gives answer and simplifies things. But this hypothesis is the easiest to discount. Science discovers new complexities, and with each discovery comes new things to discover and research.

The fourth hypothesis is the most interesting, and made me think the most about the relationship between science and art. The thought is that science has objective rights and wrongs, while art is subjective, and opinion based. There was no real conclusion to this hypothesis, but I liked thinking about it the most. Firstly, things are definitely proven wrong in science, just not necessarily within a time span that we expect. Though there is a right or wrong in science that is easier to classify in science, with time and new discovery, those rights and wrong change. People like to think art has no rights or wrong, but there are art critics, and art schools with grades, and boards for museums that determine what can be shown and what is considered art. It may not be as easy to categorize, but there are definite standards for art. Looking at these four hypotheses, the difference between art and science, and what we can learn from them, becomes more shadowed and nuanced.

The readings discuss the similarities between Art and Science. The article,  Art as a Way of Knowing states that “art is a fundamental part of being human and that learning in and through the arts is a serious form of interacting with the world by engaging with its questions, formulating ideas, and deepening knowledge.” Similarly science can be defined as a method in which people try to explain the phenomena of the natural world through “engaging with [the] questions” that the world proposes, “formulating ideas” or theories to explain these questions which in turn deepen our knowledge. Art is meant to be viewed and thought about and aims to open the viewer’s mind to a new idea or perception of the world around us. Similarly scientific discoveries do the same as it causes one to think and ponder about the certain phenomena and maybe change our perception on how we view the world.

The second article, The Art of the Brain presents how scientific data can be viewed as art. Brainbow is a piece of artwork that is made by mapping the neurons of a mouse and genetically engineering them to fluoresce. The article states that many artists use scientific equipment such as microscopes and create art from bacteria colonies that can be seen from a slide. There are exhibits, which show the beauty of nature and living things through art. I found this very interesting because many people separate these two fields and categorize them to be completely different from the other. But the article proves that scientists can also be artists through the data that they portray and the visuals that they present. It also shows that artists can be scientists as artists use observations and present their view of the world around them through colors or figures, which are similar to scientists who also use figures to present the data they have received from observing the world around them.

It’s instinctive to think of science and art as two separate entities. Science is logical-it employs reason and observations to describe and explain the world around us. Art is passionate and emotional-it is meant to affect us in some way that prompts us to ponder what the art is displaying. However, after considering the relationship between art and science and reading “Art as a Way of Knowing” and “The ArT of The BrAin:“Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art,” I came to the conclusion that science and art have a unique relationship with one another. Although it may be hard to see at first, they cannot exist without each other. Science is art, and art is science. Both science and art are fundamental parts of being human. How we interpret our world is a direct result of how science and art are influencing our own perspective. I really liked how Ashely Taylor successfully disproved the hypotheses that differentiate science from art because she opened my eyes to see that science and art are truly interchangeable. For example, the first hypothesis stated that science is done for a scientific purpose, and art for an artistic one. What does this even mean? This seemed like a tautological statement to me. Both science and art are ultimately hoping to communicate a particular idea to the audience—this is the true unifying purpose of science and art. Just because something is logical and tries to prove or display or explain a certain fact/idea doesn’t mean that it can’t be aesthetically pleasing and culturally relevant. And consequently, just because a piece of art doesn’t employ the scientific method doesn’t mean science wasn’t used in the creation and observation of the piece. In fact, in order to even describe the relationship between art and science, one must first define what “art” and “science” even mean. There is no one correct answer here, so how can we distinguish art from science and vice versa? My thought? We can’t, and that’s the beauty of science and art.

It’s difficult to describe my connection to art since now I can’t stop thinking about how art is everywhere around me. Actually, this topic-the relationship between science and art-makes me think back to the first Macaulay Seminar we took exactly a year ago, during which we were attempting to define art, and we were discovering that it was an extremely difficult task to do. As I previously wrote in a critical analysis paper, “Defining ‘art’ is something not easily done. Many people differ on what is and isn’t art because each person’s perspective of art is unique. However, it is no question that art significantly impacts our lives. Art is created, observed, contemplated, and discussed; art influences, conveys, entertains, and inspires. Art is ubiquitous–it is all around us and truthfully, anything can be made into art.” Science is art. Art is science.

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.

The article, Learning in Your Own Backyard, is all about the merits of place-based education. First of all, what is place based education? The authors note that it “focuses on the built, natural, and cultural environments of a location as a unifying concept for a content area.” In simpler words, being in a certain place lets you learn more about a certain thing. The article goes one to give multiple examples of such place-based learning environments, and it also lists many of the benefits that were found. For one thing, they increased student achievement. They improved reading and math scores. The increased performance in science and social studies. They developed the ability to make connections and draw conclusions. There was a shift from learning about science to “doing it”. Perhaps best of all, discipline problems declined, and every student had the opportunity to learn at a higher level. What’s there not to like about place-based eduction?

The thing is that there’s a lot of talk and not a lot of action. If it is as good as they say, then why hasn’t place-based education swept the nation? The issue seems to be the politics. Making changes in what is pretty-much an established educational system is near-impossible, and nobody is going to allow just anyone to experiment in children’s education without at least a Phd and a background check (e.g. fingerprinting, etc.). It is the common tale of ‘something needs to be done but nobody is man enough to step out and do it’. For anyone passionate enough about changing the way children learn, you can bet that they won’t be so passionate about it after 8 or more years earning the necessary credentials to do so. More than likely these people will find some other field that they are passionate about and apply themselves there. It’s unclear what can be done to make the most positive changes in this environment, but I believe it’s best to start small, and then work your way up.

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:

http://youtu.be/ef734H0eosU