The Art Versus Science debate is an ongoing argument regarding the importance and relevance of art and science within education. Murray (1982) argues that art and science involve essentially the same process which enables a better understanding of the world to be developed within the learner. Two misconceptions take place whereby art is considered by some to be inconsequential and science, a closed system of actualities that can simply be memorised (Murray 1982). A debate took place in the London Museum regarding the similarity between science and art whereby Arkani-Hamed explains that both areas focus on that which seems out of the reach of the individual and also that which some might at times consider to be trivial (The Guardian 2013). It could also be considered that all areas of the curriculum are based on an underpinning science, however achievement is attained by the art of producing relevant pieces of work that displays the creative capacity and ground knowledge that an individual has attained.
When completing scientific enquiry, students follow a specific structure. During a lecture at University, a cycle of scientific enquiry was produced to consider the areas that would need to be considered.
External traits like the
environment might be what causes Art and science to be considered so different
(Zink, S. 1944). Another consideration includes structure because science takes
a logical approach which includes; planning, preparation, prediction,
investigation and conclusion, supported by critical, creative (DCSF, 2008) and
mathematical thinking (Simanek, 2002) to find conclusions whereas art begins
with a plan and develops during the active process. Creativity in science could
be considered to be logical because it focuses on previous knowledge. Repetition
takes place in science to discover new information which Leonardo De Vinci
(1452-1519) regarded as extremely important. It is argued however, that art and
science are linked because both are based on practical experiences and an end
product. Experiential practice of a cycle of scientific enquiry in University
leads me to believe that scientific enquiry demands more structure in
comparison with Art. Hutchinson (2014) highlights that the Education Secretary
Nicky Morgan does not advise people to study art at University despite the need
for creativity within the workforce. The impact of this mind-set is shown by
Sands (2009) when revealing readers concerns regarding discouragement due to
Government cuts and fear of lack of employability. Therefore it could be
argued, that politically science is still considered to be the better option
academically.
Little attention has been given to interrelations between art and science (Topper D.R and Holloway J.H, 1980). Although perceived as different at first (O’Connor, 2014), both are products of active creativity. The artist and scientist Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) blended together the subjects when discovering the Fibonacci sequence which might have been used to create the Mona Lisa (1505). The Fibonacci sequence develops perfect structures in objects (Fox, No Date), including the human form (Meisner, 2012) possibly due to proportions needed for function. Deeper thinking, development of imagination and expression is gained through producing art and also dynamic thinking and discovery through science can impact art. Deeper thinking can take place both when conducting scientific enquiry or in art production. Both subjects therefore, help to build a deeper understanding of the external world. Alfert (1986) comments that creative activity is needed in the areas of both art and science in order to produce an end result. For this reason and also due to the understanding that children love to construct their own learning (Driscoll, 2013), I consider that the use of such methods as the Emelia Approach and the Leonardo Effect when planning and preparing learning experiences will help to merge art and science together. Creative enquiry, critical thinking and skills in critical analysis can be promoted in learners as they actively experience education.
References.
Alfert, M. (1986), Creativity and Merit in Art and Science, Leonardo, Vol. 19, (4) pp.
323-328 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578380 (Accessed: 16.10.14)
DCSF (2008), Developing creative and critical thinking: In science, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Developing%20critical%20and%20creative%20thinking%20-%20in%20science.pdf (Accessed: 10.12.14)
Driscoll, A. and Nagel N.G. (2013) Reggio Emilia Approach. http://www.education.com/reference/article/reggio-emilia-approach/ Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall (Accessed
23.10.2014)
Fox, K. (No Date) The fibonacci sequence in nature, http://www.inspirationgreen.com/index.php?q=fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.html (Accessed: 10.12.14)
Hutchison, D.
(2014), Education secretary Nicky Morgan:
Arts subjects limit career choices, http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/11/education-secretary-nicky-morgan-arts-subjects-limit-career-choices/
(Accessed 21.11.14)
Murray, J.J. (1983) Art, Creativity, and the Quality of Education Daedalus, Vol. 112, (3),
The Arts and Humanities in America's Schools (Summer), pp. 129-147 JSTOR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024872 (Accessed: 16/10/2014)
Meisner, G. (2012) Human hand and foot, http://www.goldennumber.net/human-hand-foot/
(Accessed: 10.12.14)
O’Conor, A (2014) Is Art and Science Speaking the same language? http://riaus.org.au/articles/are-art-and-science-speaking-the-same-language/ (Accessed: 25.10.14)
Sands, S. (2009) The Art vs Science Debate: Your views, in London Evening Standard,
London: Evening Standard Ltd.
Simanek, D. E. (2002) Uses and misuses of logic,
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm (Accessed: 10/12/2014).
The
Guardian. (2013) Nima Arkani-Hamed and Ian McEwan: The Science Museum Live Stream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPDrXORYzE (Accessed: 23/10/2014)
Topper, D.R. and Holloway,
J.H. (1980) Interrelationships between
the Visual Arts, Science and Technology: A Bibliography. Leonardo, Vol. 13
(1) pp.29-33 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577916.
(Accessed: 16/10/2014)
Zink,
S. Art, Science, and Experience: The
Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 41 (14) pp. 365-375 (Jul. 6) JSTOR [Online]
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019649. (Accessed: 16/10/2014).
Bibliography
Aldous, C.R. (2007) Creativity, problem solving and innovative science: Insights from
history, cognitive psychology and neuroscience: International Education
Journal, 2007, 8(2), 176-186.
Alfert, M. (1986), Creativity and Merit in Art and Science, Leonardo, Vol. 19, (4) pp.
323-328 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578380 (Accessed: 16/10/14)
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liew, S. and Dandekar, F
(2013) Exploring the neural correlates of
visual creativity, Vol.8 pp.475-480 Oxford Journals [Online] Available at: http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/
(Accessed: 16/10/14)
Bermúdez,
J., Agutter, J., Foresti, S., Westenskow, D. Syroid, N., Drews, F., Tashjian,
E. (2005) Between Art, Science and
Technology: Data Representation Architecture.
Leonardo, Vol. 38, (4) pp. 280-284, 296-297. JSTOR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20206068. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)
Changeux,
J. and Goldhammer, A. (1996) Creativity
and Neuroscience: Grand Street, Vol.58 (Autumn) pp.75-86 JSTOR [Online]
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25008087. (Accessed: 16/10/2014)
DCSF (2008), Developing creative and critical thinking: In science,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Developing%20critical%20and%20creative%20thinking%20-%20in%20science.pdf
(Accessed: 10/12/14)
Dietrich, A., (2004) The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review. Vol.11 (6), pp. 1011-1026 (Accessed: 10/11/14)
Driscoll, A. and Nagel N.G. (2013) Reggio Emilia Approach. http://www.education.com/reference/article/reggio-emilia-approach/ Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall (Accessed 23/10/2014)
Fox, K. (No Date) The Fibonacci sequence in nature, http://www.inspirationgreen.com/index.php?q=fibonacci-sequence-in-nature.html (Accessed: 10/12/14)
Jung, R.E., Gasparovic, C., Chavez, R., Flores,
R.A., Smith, S.M., Caprihan, A. and Yeo, R.A. (2009) Biochemical Support for the “Threshold” Theory of Creativity: A
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study: The Journal of Neuroscience, (April.
22) Vol. 29 (16) pp.5329-5325
Hutchison, D.
(2014), Education secretary Nicky Morgan:
Arts subjects limit career choices, http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/11/education-secretary-nicky-morgan-arts-subjects-limit-career-choices/
(Accessed 21/11/14)
Meisner, G. (2012) Human hand and foot, http://www.goldennumber.net/human-hand-foot/
(Accessed: 10/12/14)
Murray, J.J. (1983) Art, Creativity, and the Quality of Education. Daedalus, Vol. 112,
(3), The Arts and Humanities in America's Schools (Summer), pp. 129-147 JSTOR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024872 . (Accessed: 16/10/2014)
O’Conor, A (2014) Is Art and Science Speaking the same language? http://riaus.org.au/articles/are-art-and-science-speaking-the-same-language/ (Accessed: 25/10/14)
Sands, S. (2009) The Art vs Science Debate: Your views, in London Evening Standard,
London: Evening Standard Ltd.
Simanek, D. E. (2002) Uses and misuses of logic,
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm (Accessed: 10/12/2014).
The
Guardian. (2013) Nima Arkani-Hamed and Ian McEwan: The Science Museum Live Stream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPDrXORYzE (Accessed: 23/10/2014)
Topper, D.R. and Holloway,
J.H. (1980) Interrelationships between
the Visual Arts, Science and Technology: A Bibliography. Leonardo, Vol. 13,
(1). pp. 29-33 JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1577916.
(Accessed: 16/10/2014)
Zink,
S. Art, Science, and Experience: The Journal
of Philosophy, Vol. 41 (14) pp. 365-375 (Jul. 6) JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019649.
(Accessed: 16/10/2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment