Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October 7, 2007
W1: The Two Cultures
Do you see the two cultures? How about the third?
When observing the world for evidence of the the two cultures, it’s quite easy for me to pick up on a divide between the arts and sciences. Artists focus on “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” On the other hand, scientists deal with “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Both art and science manipulate nature, they just have different approaches. As such, people have separated the two into their own groups. (www.dictionary.com)
However, I can’t help but notice the existence of the third culture. It is just as prominent as the other cultures, the only difference is that you may have to actively search for it to notice it. The entertainment industry contains multiple examples of the third culture.
One such example is the special effects that are shown in movies. The term special effects incorporates a broad spectrum of techniques. They range from “highly sophisticated techniques like visual effects or photo special effects to the mundane effects like special effects make up or even special effects hair dye.” The science part of special effects involves understanding how people perceive the world, focusing on the brain and the sensory organs. The art part consists of manipulating the science to fool the sensory system, changing what one perceives.
(www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/9472/sfx.htm)
Is the third culture limited to the west?
During the lecture, I noticed an emphasis on the west, in particular the renaissance time period, which is understandable considering that the inventors of that era were both exceptional artists and scientists. However, during the lecture, my mind couldn’t help but drift to the east, in particular the Japanese and their karakuri dolls. Karakuri means “a mechanical device to tease, trick, or take a person by surprise. It implies hidden magic, or an element of mystery.” In general, karakuri dolls are puppets that perform certain tasks. They are Japan’s earliest mechanical robots and were an intrinsic part of Japan’s clockwork culture which existed during the Edo period. Incorporating both art and science, they embody the third culture.
An example of a karakuri doll is the chahakobi ningyo, or tea-serving doll. When a cup of tea is placed on its tray by its owner, the doll will then move towards the guest. When the guest picks up the tea cup, the doll stops. When the guest is finished with the tea, he or she will return the cup to the tray, which will prompt the doll to make a u-turn and return to the owner with the cup.
The science aspect of the doll is obtained from its mechanics, how it performs its actions. On the other hand, the art aspect of karakuri dolls “utilise subtle, abstract movements to invoke feeing and emotion.” Although such dolls were created with a more amusing or fun aim in mind, they are the predecessor of a myriad of modern inventions. Many modern industrial machines for producing products can trace their roots back to karakuri. (www.karakuri.info)
One, Two, or Three Cultures?
In today’s world does a third culture exist?
Often people only see two cultures in society: artists and scientist. Especially today, there seems to be a large gap between artists and scientists. At UCLA they are literally separated on campus. North campus is where the arts are and south campus is where the sciences are. Even though there is a clear difference between the arts and sciences, I do not think it is as great as so many people make it out to be. I am a chemical engineering major, which means that I am a south campus guy. Yet all of my classes this quarter are in north campus. I know that there are people that are strictly scientist or artists, but I feel that the gap between the two is closing. So much of the things we do in our society involves collaboration and an appreciation for the arts and the sciences. I think that architecture is a great example of this.
Artists are the people who design the building and scientists are the ones who make a plan for it. To ensure that a building is both appealing and usable they have to collaborate. For this to happen there must either be one culture that has an understanding of both the arts and the sciences, or a third culture that can translate between the two. We are far from having only one culture, but there definitely exists a third culture that can communicate between the two.
Is it possible to have only one culture?
I do not believe that it is possible to only have one culture that is a mixture of art, science, and technology. I think that people are all unique and will identify themselves with their interests. There are many people who love all aspects of art, but do not understand anything about science. I find the reverse of this to be true as well. Furthermore, there are people that have an interest and appreciation for both.
During the class discussion on Wednesday, we went around and asked people whether they identified themselves as an artist or a scientist. I myself identified myself as a scientist, along with the majority of the people in the group. There were a few people that said that they saw themselves as artists. Furthermore, a few people said that they viewed themselves as being both, a member of the third culture.
To be a member of the third culture you have to have an interest in both the arts and the sciences. This is why I do identify myself as a scientist and not a part of the third culture. I have an interest in science, but only an appreciation for the arts. I do not think of scientists as better than artists. Art is just something that has never been part of my interests. I think that there will always be people that feel the same way, only interested by art or science. More people may become a part of the third culture, but I feel that there will always be people like myself that are only interested in either the arts or the sciences.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/TwoCultures.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
Week 1: Two cultures at UCLA
Do you see two cultures on UCLA campus? Do they need each other to survive?
UCLA can be considered as one of the most culturally diverse campuses in the United States. The speakers at Freshmen Orientation and Welcome Week have repeatedly emphasized that our students come from more than ten different countries and have hundreds of different backgrounds. However, when I come to UCLA, I realized that these people can be separated into two different groups, those who are more fact-orientated and those who are more imagination-orientated.
As the stereotype goes, those who focused more on facts are more likely to be future scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. They based their researches on facts, previously proven laws, and valid claims. In most cases, a calculation can only have one correct answer, and there can only have one explanation for a natural phenomenon. Therefore, many people conclude that the studies of mathematics, sciences, and engineering s are very discreet, not much room for creativity. On the other hand, the other group of people focused on imagination.
I see them as people who can create million different products with very simple tools. Those who focused more on imagination are more likely to be the future artists in different forms. They create their masterpiece not necessary by following logics but by inspirations. As an artist see an ordinary automobile went by him. He can interpret that transportation as a representation of life, comes and goes. As a result, a number of people consider artists, such as poets and painters, as having boundless imagination ability.
Fortunately these two very different cultures are not as separated as general public may believe. In fact, the two need each other to survive. For example, a mathematician does not solve a problem only by looking at a list of mathematical laws and theorems. He or she thinks creatively similar to how an artist thinks. After the usual methods of problem solving fails, the mathematician must think outside his or her familiar realm. Without doing so, the problem cannot be solved. Likewise, artists cannot survive without the helps of people from the other group. The materials like brush, paint, and paper must be produced through the help of factories and technology. Without these aids, the artists can have the most original and the most wonderful idea in the world but cannot be shared through art works. A real life application of artists and scientists collaboration even outside UCLA is the making of computer games.
In order for a game to work, it must have its essential internal parts. Without the internal programming the game is nothing more than an idea. However, when players play the game, they would never see how the computer thinks and execute the game. The players will see the awesome characters, observe the beautiful background, and hear the realistic sound tracks. The painters and singers are those who are responsible for these gaming experiences. Even if a game contains the best idea in the world, no one would play them if the characters are stick figures and speaking computer language. It is clear that the two different people, artists and scientists are interconnected and neither can live if one of them does not exist.
Links:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/TwoCultures.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
http://www.afes.org.uk/lectures/lecdec96.htm
http://space.mit.edu/~dd/ECON/two_cultures.html
http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/12/feb94/cultures.htm
Week 1: Two Cultures
What are the 2 cultures?
Before attempting to discover the third culture, I have concentrated on gaining a better understanding of what science and particularly, art, truly are. In discussion, when asked if I was an artist or a scientist, I confidently replied scientist. I have always viewed science as more important than art. I believe studying science, as opposed to art, will lead to a rewarding job in the modern world. Art is something that I appreciate, but not view as essential to progress. During class, however, I was challenged to put my preconceived notions aside and open my mind to comprehend what art is.
According to answers.com, the basic definition of art is “Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.” Artists relate to nature, and use creativity to produce something that shows their findings. For example, let’s say an artist, named Elizabeth, looks at a tree. She thinks about how trees produce fresh air for us to breathe. She will then think of creative ways to depict this. The artist may decide to use the color green to depict life, as in this picture.
On the other hand, the definition of science is “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Scientists desire a clear-cut explanation of how things work. As in the previous example, lets say a scientist, named John, is also looking at a tree. He will have slightly different thoughts than Elizabeth. He may think, this tree is producing oxygen through the chemical process of photosynthesis. These are stereotypical examples to show how different a scientist and artist can be, but it is very likely that the scientist’s and artist’s thoughts will crossover. For instance, John, after recalling the formula, could simply appreciate the beauty of the tree and how it is helping him.
This analysis goes along with the purpose of this class: to view the seemingly separate worlds of art and science and to examine how they are actually unified.
Why do art and science seem separate now?
Just take a look at our UCLA campus: there’s north campus, which consists of dance, music, design, and natural surroundings; and south campus, where students study engineering and biology in common corporate-looking buildings. But why does this divide exist? There are various answers to this question; some say it was because art and science progressed at different rates. However, one explanation which I found interesting and true was Micah Issitt’s.
In the article, The Unification of Art and Science, Issitt proposes that art and science appear independent because of a growing mass of information. In the past, the majority of students were well-rounded, learning about all academic disciplines. This is less common now because of the large quantity of detail students need in a single field. In other words, students in the sciences rarely venture into the arts because of the necessity to focus on learning the large amount of information in the sciences, and vice versa.
Links:
Stereotypes the Barrier?
What fear do stereotypes bring about?
Stereotypes are only the aspect we create for ourselves. Not saying that we follow or that we should follow stereotypes, Its just ironic how many of the already placed stereotypes are actually put in to play by both scientists and artists. I find it really hard neglect the labels we place on each other. The stereotypes that have been persictent from the era of two of the greatest classified artists and scientists; Van Gogh and Einstein, do have some relevance to who we are today. The categorization was created at some point in time with the purpose of defining the interests of both artists and scientists.
Stereotypes affect us in no possible way, they only accumulate to the talents designated to the label. True they do come off as being offensive, no one wants to be the mad Frankenstein scientist, or the poor vagabond artist. It is through the individual creative talents of both artists and scientists that stereotypes will be broken. It ts the results of our work that will prove stereotypes and their unglamourous remarks wrong and give consent to who artists and scientists really are…
What prevents the formation of the Third Culture?
How we go about defining what the “Third Culture” is says much of how it is to be created or in what way it exists. To me the Third Culture is the cooperation of both artists and scientists in the same field, meaning no distinction of who is an artists or who is a scientist, they only exist as one. The Third Culture is no the in-between of the arts and sciences, its the expansion of knowledge incorporating both talents. It will not be until we have a better appreciation of the “First” and “Second” cultures that the “Third”will rise.
The only appropriate barrier to the third culture is the cultural ignorance of both worlds. It is the instinct of fear that keeps us divided between north and south. It is the unknown and the lack of knowledge that will continue to keep us separated. Not until we decide to recognize each others talents as one, will the “third Culture” be created. And in reality there will be no need for a “Third Culture” their will only be one. One Art, One Science, One Culture.
http://www.creativity-portal.com/articles/lynda-lehmann/tortured-artist.html
http://polarartists.com/index.html
http://www.themediafix.com/stereotypes.php
Divergent Cultures
A chicken is not a head of lettuce. One is an animal while the other a plant. One’s cells are turgid while the other’s lyse. One squawks and lays eggs while the other vegetates. Clearly, the two are, for practical purposes, completely separate. It would be strange, then, to hear that some people could believe the two to be fundamentally the same. How can one compromise the glaring differences to arrive at this conclusion?
This is a chicken.
This is a head of lettuce.
As I subscribe to the theory of evolution, in one form or another, I can accept that chicken and lettuce could share a common ancestral pool; perhaps one set of eukaryotes provided the initial sets of DNA that eventually developed into the organisms we have today, including both chicken and lettuce. Yet in the same way we regard our own species as different from the rest of animalkind, we likewise don’t treat animals in the same fashion as vegetables—or, to consider earlier evolutionary branches, bacteria and other protists. In scientific research, the treatment of lab animals and human patients are incomparable; I’ve never heard of someone raising domesticated beets as pets; and I’m fairly certain the international community would hold even less respect for the Universal Declaration of Amoebic Rights than they do the rights of other humans. It seems therefore that the origin of species, while illustrating a deeply buried common thread among the living world, seems to have little to do with the accepted schematic of ‘what’s what’ on planet Earth.
This is not to say that the two cannot live in harmony, even collaborating once in a while to produce something that neither could do alone. Yet as much as we all enjoy a Caesar salad, as far as I have heard, we have yet to successfully interbreed plant and animal to create a third, uniquely delicious walking salad. In the culinary world, various ingredients can and should be combined, and it is very rare that you find a single ingredient that can single-handedly constitute an entire dish. But as much as the combination of the two should be celebrated, I still believe that it is proper to regard each ingredient as an individual entity. Reverting our paradigms to accept all living things as fundamentally equivalent would disregard the progress made by each divergent branch of evolution; would obscure the breadth of the living world; and could very well replace the Caesar salad in our diets with e coli bacterium. But being the gourmand I am, if people can find ways to properly cook e coli, I’d be happy to try a plate.
E coli is not particularly appetizing, but we don’t hold that against it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/index_scicult.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=E6C48417-E7F2-99DF-3C663F8599E57021&colID=12
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEFDF123EF934A15757C0A961958260
