Daniel Bibawy

My idea of art has always been a little different than what most people view art as, I think. I’ve always thought of art as subjective, meaning what a person thinks is art can be art to that person. There is no definition of art and it cannot be something that is set in stone. What one person thinks art is, another might not consider to be art at all.

I think what I really learned from these articles is the methods to how science and art is created. One thing I learned is the reason most people don’t view science as art is because they think of science as some complex, formal process and art as a free-flowing, easy process. I personally do not agree with this view at all. Growing up, I’ve always had a much harder time in my art classes than my science classes. In elementary school and junior high, I never received a higher mark in my art classes than in my science classes. In fact, I thought of the two with opposite views than the ones of the general public shown in these articles. I thought of art as a tedious process where everything had to be done systematically and science was an easier process where you can just imagine everything and flow through it. For example, in “On the Art of the Brain,” one portion of the article discusses the hypothesis how science has specific methods it follows and art does not and I don’t agree with this at all. Science is the one that doesn’t have a specific pattern. It’s different every time. Art has to follow a guideline. However, neither is as one dimensional as I’m making it out to be. Science can easily be viewed as art, and it often is to me. A perfect example of this is the “Brainbow.” Few people would argue both the scientific and artistic characteristics to this.

It’s certainly a knee-jerk reaction to say that science and art have nothing in common. I’m reminded of Richard Feynman’s opinion on this. An artistically-inclined  friend of Feynman’s told him that a flower to an artist is so much more beautiful than a flower to a scientist. Feynman’s retort was, as a scientist, he understood the various processes behind the flower, and it became all the more beautiful for it. Science is about understanding our environment. But for many, it’s a difficult process to internalize and when a student is faced with paragraphs and blocks of words, they quickly lose interest. Art, on the other hand, is something intuitively grasped. It speaks to the viewer on an emotional level and inspires them.  I loved “The Art of The Brain: “Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art”  for talking about whether or not aesthetically-pleasing scientific data can be considered artwork.

The difficulty with statistics is they are hard to empathize with. If you stare at numbers for a significant amount of time, they devolve into meaningless digits. By presenting findings in a pleasing manner, you can inspire those reviewing your data. Art can inspire an interest in science, and science can enhance the aesthetics of art.

I went on a guided tour of the Metropolitan Museum of Art this morning, and when the guide talked about the perfect balance and proportions of a statue, it really made me wonder how closely interrelated science and art were. A sculptor can look to the anatomy of the human body to enhance their work, making better artwork. A casual observer can be inspired by the artwork to understand the math and proportions behind the masterpiece. Art can inspire understanding of science, and science can enhance artworks. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

Ilanit Zada

Science and Technology in NYC

Professor Adams

10-20-13

What is the relationship between science and art? Let’s face it, it is nonexistent. These two areas are treated as completely different subjects that have nothing to do with one another. Well, at least that is what I thought until I read the two articles assigned. The article that really resonated with me and seemed to shed a light on this idea was the one entitled “Art as a Way of Knowing,” by Marina McDougall, Bronwyn Bevan, and Robert Semper. In this article, it is stated that “art enchants and invites participation” (6). That sentence tied everything together for me and provided me with insight to understand the message being conveyed.

A few weeks back we learned about the six strands of learning (in our seminar class). According to Surrounded by Science, the first, and in my opinion most important strand was sparking an interest and excitement. When trying to teach an individual something new, it is vital that the person finds the subject interesting to ensure their utmost attention.  Many people enjoy coloring or drawing so by including that in the subject being taught, one has already caught their attention and these individuals will want to learn more about it. Furthermore, in the video watched in class, the students were planting in different plastic containers recycled on a day-to-day basis. In this project, the students combined both artistic as well as scientific aspects. They seemed to be genuinely interested in the different scientific aspects and the important things that went into having a flourishing plant. I believe that a lot of this interest was due to their enjoyment of the activity; not only was this an opportunity for them to learn new things in science, it was also an opportunity for them to do something they enjoy: coloring, drawing, and including other artistic aspects. After going through this thought process, I came to the realization that art is connected to science in piquing the interest of individuals and get people to participate. In many cases we can go so far as to say that without art, there would not be as many people interested in the sciences.

Both of the articles seek to ascertain a link between the evolving forces of science and art. “The Art of the Brain,” by Ashley Taylor, attempts to distinguish the differences between the fields of science and art, leading to her conclusion that the two are hard to separate. She notices that both art and science follow a prescribed method that can differ from one scientist and one artist to the next. Both art and science also appreciate the complexity of the things for which they are concentrated on. While the author’s focus of differentiating the two is an interesting take on the fields, the second article, I felt, truly portrayed the relationship between art and science as I see it.

The second article entitled “Art as a Way of Knowing,” by Marina McDougall explores the interdependence of science and art. It discusses the ways in which art has allowed for the evolution of science to unfold. This happens because of the similarities lurking amongst art and science. Both allow for the interaction with the world through the asking of questions, and developing a deeper understanding of a topic. More specifically, art allows for science learning as it is “effective at engaging and distilling complex and dynamic problems,” and it “enchants and invites participation”(7). Art also allows for synthesis and it engages all of the senses of the learner. This approach to the connectivity of art and science really struck me as I tapped into my memory of witnessing the two fields intertwined.

I remember glancing through a field journal of an electrical engineer and being amazed at the elaborate sketches confined in the notebook. It surprised me as to the artistic know-how needed in order to participate in such a deeply scientific field. However, in order for him to articulate the design of the new prototype, an intricate sketch was needed to allow for the translation of his thoughtful design into a material product. During my biology classes as well, we were required to glance under a microscope and sketch the images that we were seeing. Although this was in a classroom, this represented the ways in which real biologists communicated their view of specimens to their fellows. Art, in both cases allowed for the dissemination and spread of new scientific knowledge. And even before the scientific learning can take place, art is used as a tool to enchant and engage the learner. The hand-crated planters displayed in the Midwood community gardens perfectly illustrated this idea as the bright colors were meant to catch the attention of the young children, encouraging them to learn about the various planting mechanisms that were housed in the planters. Ultimately, when trying to encourage creativity in a field of science, art is used to lure in prospective learners, causing them to tap into their wells of inquiry and perception.

I think it’s very important to remember that even though science and art are two very distinct fields of study that are pursued for very different objectives, they do not live in mutual exclusivity and therefore can intersect when willed to intersect. This is an example we see with Brainbow, which I thought was super cool to read about. Lichtman’s quote about how art has the purpose of teaching something new about the world or changing your perspective of the world exemplifies how art and science can be intertwined, if in a rather vague sense. Science’s purpose is to broaden the mind, and if art is meant to do the same, then they are at parallel purposes. I definitely appreciated the idea that the Brainbow experiment could represent something larger. On a deeper, more analytical level, one could argue that the addition of polychromy to the brain of a mouse shows that even a “less evolved” brain like that of a rodent can produce something beautiful, simply by virtue of existing. On a scientific level, it represents the level of brain activity apparent in a rodent and simply gives the data a more interesting aesthetic.

I know that the author of The Art of the Brain is trying to draw a distinction between the two disciplines of science and art, but isn’t it infinitely more interesting to study the many ways in which they intersect? From a filmmaker’s perspective, the physics of light and energy, and the chemistry of developing film are very important to the art style. But, as I read further, I find that this is obviously what the author is starting to realize. As she ponders through the methodology of artists and compares it to the methodology of scientists, she realizes that the lines are more blurred than he anticipated, and her argument for a distinction starts to blur as well.

The article Art As A Way Of Knowing seems to already be taking in stride that art and science can intersect in meaningful ways, but doesn’t delve into that way of thinking. It recounts a conference at the Exploratorium that gathered artists, scientists, and educators to discuss the way that art can be used as a mode of inquiry. The article discusses that even though art is no stranger to history and historically famous scientists, the use of art in learning and inquiry is often overlooked in common discourse. It goes on to discuss how art is vital to children’s upbringing and the formation of culture, but apart from that, the article doesn’t really go into much, or any, detail about how art is useful as a tool of scientific inquiry. Rather, the article reads more as an advertisement; a teaser for this conference that was held at the Exploratorium and is inviting the reader to do more research into the event.

The two articles that I read described the similarities between the fields of art and science. The first article entitled, “Art as a Way of Knowing” by Marina McDougall, suggested that a link between these two fields is that art encourages public engagement in science but also argues that there is much more linking the two than just that. Art and science both serve as a method of inquiry and knowing. According to the article, since the late 1960s the role of art in science learning has been rapidly revolutionizing. Since the post-Sputnik era, there has been significant blending between art and science lines to create new forms of engagement with and understanding of the world. Learning through art is a way to interact with the natural and social world. Art and science are both based on experiences that involve the use of a combination of different senses. They are also learned through the same methods, require devotion and passion, and have similar purposes – to create a representation of our surroundings. Leonardo da Vinci has always been my favorite artist. He is a genius in so many fields that it is almost an insult to only call him an artist. He is also a scientist who performed many studies focused on observation of various phenomena. His skills as an artist were applied to creating depictions of utmost detail and engineering many machines. He dissected carcasses to learn anatomy and created anatomical representations that were way ahead of their time. Leonardo da Vinci is a perfect example of the intertwined relationship between artistic and scientific genius.

The second article entitled, “The Art of the Brain” by Ashley Taylor, also underscored the vibrant connection between art and science. Much of science cannot be visualized without art diagrams. Drawings of the natural world were extremely important during the early years of science before the modern age of technology. Even now, we learned by watching Jay Holmes’s video about the Museum of Natural History, experts who study morphological differences between spiders to discover new species depend on great art skills to be able to depict the details that cameras cannot capture. This article also brought up the fact that art and science share a purpose since they both try “to portray an aspect of the world that they think is important” (6). They both try to learn something, to teach an idea, and to try to understand the world. Another commonality between the two is that there are certain guiding principles to both fields. The scientific method in science involves the formation of a hypothesis to explore a topic. There are also methods in art such as the Stanislavski method commonly referred to as “method acting” which helps train actors to bring out believable emotions in their performances. But like in art, scientists do not always follow the method of testing hypotheses and doing deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is also used which focuses on gathering observations of different things to then formulate a hypothesis based on observations. There is not always a hypothesis to be tested; sometimes scientists want to first show what they observed and then aim to explain. Much the same can be said about art aiming to show first without explaining and then generate thoughts based on the observations. The last point that the article presents is an interesting thought about how our entire interaction with life is all based on the art of perception. Everything that is observed in the world, whether it is art or science, is all processed and perceived through our brain mechanisms. It is all to some degree our imagination that accounts for our idea of the world.

My biggest connection to art is through music – I play both the piano and the violin. Art not only teaches you the patience and determination you need to have in scientific fields, but also encourages creativity that is also necessary in scientific research. After playing these instruments and taking physics in high school, I began to become interested in how these wooden instruments really work. Practicing these instruments every day, and learning about their mechanisms in physics class sparked my interest in learning more about frequencies and the uniqueness of string vibrations. I also visited many art museums and was fascinated by how art has evolved as scientific knowledge progressed. I would say that art is also a science because scientific concepts such as the idea of perspective need to be learned to be able to accurately depict what the eye sees. Seeing how art evolved overtime and how science has expanded is always mind-blowing; and seeing how each helped the other grow through its contributions is equally incredible.

“Learning in Your Own Backyard: Place-Based Education for Museums” and “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place” are both articles that emphasize the importance of place based learning and how it contributes to a more complete learning experience. Place based learning can sometimes be a crucial factor in the overall learning experience of an individual. Learning in the environment that you are studying about allows you to draw unique connections and discover information not found in the text. This concept is seen in the structure of our seminar class because we formulate genuine thoughts from just being in New York City. During the Bioblitz, we were directly in contact with the setting and the subject that we were learning about. The ability to see first hand information on what I was learning about was amusing and memorable. This stems from the idea that informal learning allow for deeper learning when involving numerous interactions.

I believe that place based learning can be extended to all genre’s of learning. The reason I believe this is because I   attended the Tenement Museum and I remember most of the information that the tour guide provided. The Tenement museum was mentioned in the articles and is essentially an old building in which immigrants had lived in during their stay in New York. I remember being amazed at how crammed the living conditions were and how simple the lifestyles were. All the family members would help make extra money in anyway possible and they all had a heavy religious background. The fact that the images of the museum and the information that I learned are so vivid only further supports that place based learning can provide an incredible boost in learning, retaining information, and thinking critically.