Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October 8, 2007
Tech vs. Art
What came first? The chicken or the egg? The same question can be applied to art and technology, does art need technology, or is it technology that needs art? As simple as the question may seem there is no clear answer, and like everything it lies in the eyes of the beholder to decide for himself.
In the end most people would agree that they need eachother to exist, without design there is no technology and new art, and art ways are being produced through new technology. So I suppose the question now is which on is more important to humans? As discussed in discussion this week we had a lot of people who considered themselves scientists and a good deal of people who called themselves artists, but as we argued as to who was more important to society I began to think why there was so much competition when the reasons we were giving were almost identical.
I believe there is a scientist and a artist inside all of us, we use both scientific methods and creative thinking to come up with whatever we decide to make, but it is the final product that defines us. Weather its creating a 3-D short film or desining the next model for the lunar rover, the individual has both a artistic and scientific component to each creation.
Another question that was asked was who influences society more; scientits or artists. There was a great deal of people who considered themselves scientists who thought that their expertiece was more influencial, where some artists found it offensive to discard creative expresion so easily. After thinking I found there a explanation that perhaps satisfies the answer for both individuals:
“In terms of influencing society, scientists try to better the practical applications and methods of our lives, while artists express the emotional derivations of those applications. “
Rivalry
The rivalry of North vs. South campus at UCLA is a perfect example of the wall that seperates the cultures on our campus. As an engineering student, I endure the smirks of North Campus, implying us south campus majors are ”nerdy” and “unsocial,” the typical stereotype. Retaliating, south campus majors like to make fun of north campus by telling them we will someday be their bosses. Not everyone fits the stereotype, however, there is a significant overall difference in the energy surrounding each culture rising from opposing ways of thinking and behaving.
The scientists at UCLA, south campus majors, like structure and logical steps that lead to an explanation. They put off a more conservative and concentrated vibe. Rarely do they ever explore an ambiguous perspective on projects because they are in classes where proofs lead to one answer and experiments lead to one theory.
Our artists, however, explore unlimited answers and open their minds to new, fresh ways of thinking. They give off a free, unrestricted and carefree vibe, always accepting a new idea that may contradict their own.
There are clearly two different cultures. However, more and more they are expected and forced to interact with each other as our thinking advances. Technology has created an important bridge between the two cultures so we can work with and learn from each other and use our strengths to enhance our lives. Video games, architecture and iPods are all examples of how technology and human advances have forced these two cultures to interact as they once did in the Renaissance. Although technology has now started to create this third culture, there is still a clear divide between the two cultures of artists and scientists even present on the UCLA campus.
Science and Art Intertwined
Science facilitates art. Art glorifies science.
My greatest passions are cars, piano, and photography. Though my chosen major is Mechanical Engineering, I consider myself both a scientist and an artist; my passions reflect my leanings. As an engineer, I am thrilled by the refinement of the inner mechanical workings of automobiles, pianos, and cameras. As a scientist, I find the precision and consistency of the actions of these machines. As an artist, I appreciate exciting automotive design, pleasing music and intriguing photos.
These two cultures of art and science, though quite different in their approaches, are deeply intertwined even symbiotic. Scientists make discoveries and possibilities, putting more emphasis on practicality. For instance, engineers develop the framework of cars or camera components but do not seek to make them aesthetically pleasing. An artist uses these developments and advancements in science and technology to create and further their work. One great example is the transforming effect of the recent implementation of digital technology to music, film, architecture, industrial design, graphic design, and photography. An artist enhances and even promotes science by drawing inspiration from scientific knowledge and incorporating it to their work. Seeing from Professor Vesna’s work, it seems even the most abstract fields in science are still fair game for artists.
http://about.polo.com/mfacars/launch.asp?activepage=1&ab=suits_learnAboutCarsLink
http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/sub.asp?key=15&subkey=500
WEEK 1: Two Cultures
Two Cultures or two area of knowledge?
Art and sciences are two subjects that a high school IB Theory of Knowledge course discusses. But, rather labeling the two as cultures, ToK uses the term area of knowledge. Meaning, knowledge claims can be made through the arts, sciences, or other areas. In the ToK class, students try to learn what art or science is. Art can really be anything. It can be paintings, sculptures, buildings, and even science. In science, there is more logic, deduction, induction, experimentation, and etc. So, in a way, art is freer while science is more rigid. It is interesting to note how Snow uses two cultures while ToK uses area of knowledge. No matter what the context, art and science seem to have a sort of innate rivalry or clear distinctions separating them into different fields. As noted in the lecture, art and science started out as one: art. Eventually a fork forms, almost like in evolution. Now art and science are comparable to two different species. They are still evolving even now and maybe will come together later on.
Can art be science and can science be art?
Seemingly, the two cultures are interchangeable. The process of making art can be scientific, such as building a monument via architecture. And in different fields of study in science, such as astronomy, the subject matter can appear as art, the stars. Art and science are quite exchangeable, so it is interest to see a rivalry or gap between the two. Then again, having a rivalry can be beneficial as competition can be a powerful driving force.
http://www.bangkokpost.net/education/site2003/cvfb1103.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/02/08/irish_elk_of_the_jurassic.php
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/adegerma/94%20Statue%20of%20Liberty.html
http://www.le.ac.uk/ph/faulkes/web/images/stars.jpg
http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/jw_galaxy_m51.jpg
Two Cultures
TWO CULTURES ON THE UCLA CAMPUS
Although I have only been on campus for about two weeks, I have already begun to distinguish the two cultures within UCLA’s campus. The fact that I am undeclared and undecided in terms of my major is allowing me to explore both cultures. My daily schedule consists of traveling from the Math and Sciences department on the South side, to the Broad Arts building on the North end. In a sense, I feel somewhat stuck in the middle of both cultures. During our discussion this week, the first question we were asked was “What do you consider yourself; an artist, or a scientist?” There were three responses to this question; artist, scientist, or a bit of both. Personally, it was difficult for me to decide, and I therefore categorized myself in the middle. Two cultures? Definitely not; there are three distinct cultures on campus; the arts, the sciences, and those who are in between both.
While complete opposites in the opinion of many individuals, the arts and the sciences rely upon one another in order to be successful. Video games are a prime example of scientists and artists working together to create something so stunning and beautiful, yet fully functional. Without the scientist, a game cannot function properly, or even at all. At the same time, an artist is necessary in order to make the game attractive to the consumer. Early video games did not have a great amount of artist input and therefore appeared very basic. As artists came in the picture, and technology has advanced, video games have evolved from stick figures, to realistic looking objects and individuals. The interaction between artists and scientists has shaped our society today, not only in terms of video games. The result of this interaction is apparent all around us, from the construction of buildings, all the way to the creation of clothing. Without the combination of both worlds, society would not be as advanced and as creative as it is to this day; we would either be a bunch of basic, monotonous scientists, or artistic cavemen.
Week 1: Confusion Among Subjects
Confusion Among Subjects
If art, science, and technology will be compared, examined to infinitesimally small detail, and brought to the point where they become indistinguishable, we need to first take a step back and look at what they truly are. We must begin with an impartial source, or one that was used as such in lecture: the Oxford Dictionary.
Art : the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
Technology : the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry
So what defines each subject? Is it the mindset? motive? goal? It is all three.
Art’s mindset is one of creativity, the motive to express skill and imagination, and the goal to create works “appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
Science is focused on observing and experimenting on the natural world, its motive is to gain intellectual knowledge, and the goal is similar to further the understanding of the natural world.
Technology is primarily concerned with making tasks easier for people, its motive is to make science practical for people, and goal to increase the efficiency of routine tasks and chores.
Now what sets these three apart? Often scientists might dawn a mindset of creativity to see the solution to a problem within their own work. Or in other cases they might have a common goal, such as creating a product that will sell. So if their mindsets and goals are interchangeable, it must be their motives that create their distinction. So if science strictly desires to gain intellectual knowledge and art is restricted to expression (however much that can be restricting) then we have two separate cultures. But if an artist choses to use scientific tools as his or her paintbrush we do not have a third culture. As long as the motive remains the same, the artist is merely changing medium. Changing from oil paints to sculpting clay would not change the fact that it is still art.
“Not a Two Way Street”
Why is there so much debate over the idea of science as an art? Is it because the converse is so obvious? That science frequently and effectively influences science? Or is it because artists feel that they are getting the short end of the stick if they are only being influenced by science? Perhaps there is not as much of a need (or desire) from the science side to have art in their work. Do I really need to quote our required reading? As Stephen Wilson, Director of the Conceptual Information Arts Program of San Francisco State University said “Many [scientists] are quite engaged by the classical worlds of art, theatre, and music but do not see art as relevant to their professional work as researchers.” Now is science and technology completely independent from art? No, according to Wilson scientists enjoy it, but further are they completely free from it in their work? If so, it might be the missing piece that keeps their product from selling.
The Pieces to the Puzzle
Consider the sports car as an example, if the car’s engine, speed, and efficiency as a car were poorly produced the car would not be as highly as desired. Conjointly, if the car’s outer appearances lack an aesthetic touch, then the car would also be less desired. It is important to point out that, for most, a sports car or luxury car is just that, a luxury. This is because it further distinguishes the sports car as art. So where does that leave us? With two separate cultures fusing together as one? Or with two sides bringing their own specialized solution to the problem? The two cultures are not fusing to become a third, but exist as two separate entities each adding their own individual pieces to the puzzle.
These pieces may work together to serve a common goal, but are implementing different motives.
Separated by design
Is the separation on campus beneficial to advances in technology and arts?
During the Renaissance, excelling in more that one field was highly prized. Skills in multiple fields allowed men to research and develop new ideas that defined this new age. But in our generation, we are forced to specialize in one area alone. Take for example here at UCLA, incoming freshman are nearly forced to choose a major, laying out the next four years in stone. As an engineer, I take a few elective courses such as Desma 9, but for the most part I am stuck on South Campus. When I do travel to north campus it is for an introduction course like Introduction to Oceanography . Can I really make a contribution to this field with introductory knowledge?
However, by learning almost exclusively math and science, south campus students become very good at there respective fields. For example, in the school of engineering alone, their are many different specializations. An engineer trained in all areas on a surface level is only going to make surface level progress. A highly trained individual in one field will be able to do outstanding and ground breaking work in that field. So maybe this evolution into two separate campuses is a motivator of progress. But many students would rather be well rounded, so a sacrifice has to be made in progress.
Is it possible for these cultures to come together?
Today people collaborate on projects much more so than the past centuries. We have images of Da Vinci working alone in a dark chamber for hours. But today artists and scientists come together to produce some of the worlds most amazing work. The iconic Sydney Opera House is one of the most recognizable buildings in the world. The staggering arches were designed by architects, while acoustical engineers made the great halls functional for music and theatre. In almost every structure architects must consult scientists to be able to construct a building that is able to withstand an earthquake or support a load. While the two fields of art and science are separate in campus, they do come together. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_man
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/
http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/1823.htm
Week 1 – Section 1B – Peter Chang
Do you see two cultures on the UCLA campus?
I will define what I see as the “two cultures” of art and science. I see art as a field of education that studies human interactions with each other and the world around them. They study the deeper meaning of life and express that with music, visual arts, and literature. Science, on the other hand, while they similarly study human interactions, they do so not to interpret something as intangible as life in general, but to interpret the physical world in which they live in. This is what C.P. Snow tried to convey as the “two cultures”, further solidified by the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of ‘science’ used to mean “…physical and experimental…to the exclusion of theological and metaphysical.”
I see two cultures on the UCLA campus just C.P. Snow saw two cultures as Literary Intellectuals and Natural scientists. While visiting numerous club kickoff meetings during this first week, it was clear to me that, at face value, there was a lack of relation to any sort of the humanities in the construction of rockets, robots, airplanes, and cars. Posters around the rooms were of charts of material stress yield points, wave functions, project budgets, ect. Nothing really reminded me remotely of any sort of human soul or higher being(s).
When I walk to north campus I get a sense that the work done there isn’t necessarily as practical as it must be at south campus. Take the Broad building for example. While the engineering buildings are built for practicality in mind – straight corridors, wide workshop doors, adequate lighting – The Broad building seems to have many more aesthetic and ultimately useless elements – incomplete walls, light fixtures, veranda shading. I feel as if the architects of the buildings were much more like artists, trying to design a building that would make a student feel more welcome and open to the world around them.
As I reflect upon such different cultures, I wonder what C.P. Snow meant when he spoke of tensions rising between the two cultures. I personally don’t see anything of the sort. Although there may be two distinct fields of study, I don’t see an active separation of the two. A scientist may very well be a patron of the arts and may even base some of his scientific works off the art of artists, while an artist may love the work of scientists as continue to create innovative changes to the world the artists live in. Artists and Scientist are different simply because the fruits of their studies have to do with two different aspects of the natural world.
Actively Connecting the two cultures:
Professor Vesna was talking about the Leonardo Journal and how it was a concept of “artists keeping journals” just as a scientist would about his research. Frank Malina’s concept of the Leonardo Journal brings up what I think may be a problem of actively connecting the “two cultures.” I wondered, how exactly can an artist’s work directly influence the work of scientists? And conversely, how can an artist use the work of a scientist or scientists to better understand him/herself and the world?
While the former is still a hard concept for me to grasp, I can speak on the latter problem by saying how scientific research done in quantum physics and neuroscience & human behavior (psychology) have the potential to uncover long-sought-for mysteries of life while being backed up by hard scientific evidence. What if we can find meaning to our world in another dimension? What if we can find the soul in the fibers of our brain? Clearly, our scientific studies have large consequences for the artist curious about life.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/soul-search/?searchterm=soul%20search
Art and Science
Do you see two cultures on the UCLA campus?
There are two distinct cultures that I have noticed on the UCLA campus. If anyone needed help noticing what they are, you would only have to look at the physical north/south barrier, or even the fact that two different schools within our campus separate the art and science majors. I do not believe that these two cultures would be so divergent if it were not for the level of students on the UCLA campus.
I transferred here from a community college and I noticed the extremely different atmosphere on the two campuses. I think that because students here are so much more focused on their academic goals there is more concentration on the major that they have committed themselves to. In community college, majors aren’t required for any course so in every class I could be interacting with a middle-aged mother trying to learn for her own benefit, or a 16 year old planning to have her masters by 20, or a kid just going continuing to go to school to make his parents happy. In my previous school the differences between art and science majors were not perceptible at all. On UCLA’s campus however, students tend to remain close to others with similar majors. This is what marks the variation between art and science, as students most likely see the benefit of networking with other people who will be in the same field as them in the future.
How has technology influenced the collaboration of art and science?
In recent years, the advancement of computers has made art able to be much more technical, and at the same time has made scientists able to become more creative and imaginative. The common ground that technology has created between art and science has allowed both artists and scientists to relate to each other and has provided a universal medium for everyone to share ideas. The product of all of this infinite information that is available to anyone is new art and science that has been influenced by one another. Some recent examples of these influences can be seen in the popular “Bodies” exhibit that has showcased around the world, or the newest imaging techniques that use artistic ideologies to map planets that are millions of light-years away. Every new innovation is an advancement that can be credited to both art and science.
Links:
Dynamic of the two cultures on the UCLA campus
What role does UCLA’s organization into North campus and South campus have in the creation of the two cultures?
The separation of facilities at UCLA by discipline – with the more scientific fields placed in South campus and those in the art/humanities bunched together in North campus – facilitates a division between the cultures of art and science in several ways. First, simply because of the physical separation of the two campuses, students from the arts and those from the sciences have much less of a chance to converse with each other. It’s hard for people from different fields to meet and to harbor a better understanding of each other when they are constantly on opposite ends of the campus. Secondly, having such a strongly defined and widely reinforced division between the North and South affects the mindsets of students from both areas and creates negative and unfounded stereotypes about them. South campus majors (who are all supposedly male) are “supposed” to keep to themselves and their lab work, while the North campus majors are “supposed” to spend their days lying in the sculpture garden writing poetry and debating philosophy. Such a division turns the atmosphere on the UCLA campus from a place of collaboration and mutual understanding into the disputed territory of an intellectual-gang war between the North and South.
What positive effects, if any, does the existence of two separate cultures have on the students at UCLA?
As much misunderstanding and lack of discourse is caused by separating the two cultures of art and science has, it’s hard to fault UCLA for planning and building the campus in the way they did. Bunching similar facilities together is the most logical way of organizing the campus and is probably the most cost effective method of land usage as well. These are very important issues for any urban school, where available land is at a premium – particularly one with over 35,000 students. Also, placing students from similar fields together helps them get in touch with people with similar mindsets and ideas. That’s not to say that students shouldn’t be exposed to opposing viewpoints than their own, but it’s nice for students to be able to be around people that share common ideas and beliefs. As a first year from Kansas who’s still freshly trying to navigate this pool of over 35,000 strangers, I can particularly appreciate this opportunity to meet people from a common background.
Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
http://library.thinkquest.org/3257/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/600
http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/12/art-vs-science.html
Two Cultures? State of the Art Technology
I’ve often heard the phrase ‘This piece of equipment is an outcome of the state of the art technology’. Probably, I’ve heardit most often from the movie 007 series.
When the agent 007 receives the equipments he’ll need for the mission from “Q”, Q would describe it as the State of the Art technology. And of course one of these equipments would be a car that would withstand rain of bullets, but somehow Bond would find his way to completely devastate it. I’ve never really thought that deeply into this phrase before, but simply regard it as ‘it creates beautifully useful results, so in a sense, it is like a beautiful art work’.
But I’ve never actually made connection between Art, Science & Technology before. Most connection I’ve formulated in my head was ‘if a science is at the newest topic, or the technology is so new and effective, it is quite prescious and should be treated like an art work.’ I have never remembered how Leonardo Da Vinci was a both artist and scientist at the same time. So, since the lecture, I’ve been trying to come up with my own understanding of the phrase ‘State of the Art Technology’. I’ve yet been successful perhaps because I could only remember how the phrase was used in 007 movies. However, I hope to see more examples of science and technology throughout the course that would spark a different definition that would make the phrase clear to me.
Week1: Art+Science!=Culture at UCLA
“What the heck did he type in title of his blog entry?” you maybe asking yourself. Someone that has taken a basic computer science class would know that it translates roughly to: “Art and science is not, or does not equal to, the culture at UCLA”. I remember during freshman orientation (a year ago), we were one a tour through campus and the tour guides were describing the two different divisions of the school. We had the Humanities up North, and the Sciences down South. Since we were the engineering group, the tour guide had the funniest stories about the North campus students. One story he told was about the beautification of south campus proposed by students of north campus. On the east side of Kinsey Pavilion, the side with the inverted fountain, there are paintings on the upper portion of the building. The guide said that after the building was done being “beautified,” the students from South campus were laughing their butt’s off when they saw Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc^2, painted on the wall as e=mc. Both divisions of the school make fun of each other, and its all in good and fun, but it would be great if the dividing lines between these two subjects were less noticeable.
A great example of the collaboration of artists and engineers comes from the gaming industry. In the beginning years of video game development, a team of eight people would be able to create a game. Doom was one of those games. A revolutionary game that displayed the power of Id’s new graphics engine. Unfortunately, the only person in the development that could be described as an artist, was the level designer. The engineers created all the graphics in-game.
*Doom 1’s Super Special Awesome Graphics!*
The most recent incarnation of Doom is Doom 3. The development team consisted of around 40 people. Around half artists, half engineers. With the cooperation of both factions, they created a beautiful, and freaking scary, video game.
*That’s what I’m talking about!*
Art and science work beautifully together and with both sides working together, I can’t wait for what comes next.
Sources/References:
-http://www.gametrailers.com/player/26073.html
-http://www.doomworld.com/10years/demos/demos01.php
-http://qref.planetquake.gamespy.com/sandy.html
-http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;img;1
-http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/index.html?tag=result;img;0
Week One: The Two Cultures
Do you see two cultures at UCLA? How about a 3rd?
There is a distinct separation between the sciences and the humanities at UCLA. There is even a physical manifestation of these differences in the separation of the campus into north and south. There are many science students who never venture up to north campus except for the occasional GE class. The disparities between the two cultures, humanities and sciences, are extremely obvious. In many ways, it makes sense to view science and art as having unbridgeable differences. Science is about research and making new technologies. Art is all about the aesthetic and self-expression. Those two things are different, of course, but there are many common instances that bridge the science-art divide. Consumer-oriented technology /always/ has an exterior designed by artists. Ipods, for example, have a very distinguished look carefully crafted by artists who understood the principles of aesthetics as well as utility.
Another good example is the film industry. It’s rare to see such a close interaction between scientists and artists. Software engineers make exceptionally complex pieces of software which the artists then use to create special effects. A good example is Flowline from Scanline. Flowline is one of the best. if not /the/ best visual fluid dynamic simulators ever created. When put in the hands of someone who is technically and artistically talented, it can create amazing (and often beautiful) imagery. (check it out at http://www.flowlines.info/ ).
Are the perceived differences between science and art partially economic?
In the days following the lecture, I thought often about why science and art are so fundamentally different. Truly, this class has opened my eyes a bit to see that there are connections between science and art everywhere. As someone avidly involved with computer graphics, I saw connections between science and art within my own artwork. Regardless of any bridges between science and art, I still vast differences between the ways people regard science and art. As a whole, society (or at least American society) seems to value technology and science above all else. In a capitalistic society, it seems that in many cases, money equates respect. To me, art isn’t seen as something very profitable. This may just be from ignorance, as art can certainly be extremely profitable, especially in the fashion and advertising industries. Yet, it seems more than simple ignorance. Art has taken a back seat to the two things that push the American economy ever forward: science and technology.
Art and Science or Art vs. Science
Walking down bruin walk on the way to class one sees many cultures, but once in the classrooms two main cultures can be seen. On the north side, the humanities; on the south, the sciences. On the north side of campus papers are being written and novels being read; on the south labs are being run. This separation is caused by narrow minded thinking. Throughout time artists were scientists and scientists- artists. At UCLA with the divided campus they have been separated. Now artists are looked at as abstract thinkers and scientists as goal oriented thinkers. Two cultures separated. If these two cultures were able to recombine much progress would be made. CP Snow is right. These two cultures should be made one. It would give both the scientists and artists different viewpoints while working on experiments, and advance our culture so much more.
Week 1: Two Cultures
Do you see the two cultures on the UCLA campus?
Like most people, I do see the two distinct and different cultures on the UCLA campus. I believe that there is far too much emphasis on the north vs. south campus debate. One of my professors regularly harasses south campus students, and although it is in jest, it continues to divide the two cultures. By emphasizing the difference between science and humanities minded students, it makes it difficult for a third culture to emerge.
Does the third culture exist?
It certainly does exist, but few people on campus would put themselves in the third culture category. During our discussion on Wednesday, few people labeled themselves as both a scientist and an artist. I believe that the question “are you an artist or a scientist?” is a loaded one. I, for instance, am a physiological science major. Most would label me a scientist. The problem with this label is the fact that in my spare time, I am actually fairly “artsy,” as I play and enjoy many types of music, I write whenever I get the chance, and although I can’t draw or paint, I can appreciate fine art.
But as Wilson states in our assigned reading, an appreciation of art does not mean that I necessarily apply art to my work due to the fact that I don’t feel that there is any real relevance. However misguided I may be, at this moment of time, I find little scientific value in my artistic endeavors. This then brings us full circle. Due to glaring problems like this, it is truly difficult to accommodate a third culture. However, these problems only apply to one’s work. Scientists and artists regularly converse in day to day life aside from the lab or the studio and create what we know as diversity and complex thought.
Links:
http://www.deviantart.com (A great site of digital art using programs like Adobe Photoshop, Autodesk’s Maya and 3ds Max)
http://beallcenter.uci.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.P._Snow
The Mixing of Art and Science
Does UCLA’s curriculum contribute to the dissociation of artists and scientists?
There is a clear geographical division of artists and scientists on the UCLA campus: North Campus and South Campus. However, this division runs much deeper than the simple separation of classrooms. As a chemical engineering major, I envy the freedom and creativity of North Campus majors; my education feels restricted to a textbook. Thus far in my time at UCLA, my homework has consisted of monotonous reading assignments and trivial math calculations. One of my roommates, a North Campus major, was recently assigned a project to find and create examples of architecture that did not involve buildings. Although some of my math and chemistry problems require critical thinking, I find that most answers are limited to a single interpretation. Unlike my roommate’s homework, there has been no creative aspect to my work. Clearly, artists are encouraged to “think outside the box,” while scientists must stick to their textbooks.
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/good_clean_fun_2/art-sci.htm
Why should artists and scientists help to build the “third culture?”
Collaboration of the arts and sciences is necessary for technological advancement. As David Bohm made clear in “On Creativity,” there are many modern scientists that have a wider understanding of physics than Einstein. However, in order for progress to be made, there needs to be originality; the arts can help bring originality to the sciences. The mixing of the arts and sciences can bring about new and beautiful creations. Observing the development of computers, one can clearly see the need for artists. Scientists are necessary to develop all the parts that must go into computers, but science can only go so far. The actual architects of motherboards, graphics cards, and other computer components must draw ideas from the artistic realm; artistic thought helped to organize the different parts of computers into the sleek, small, and easy-to-use laptops of today. Cooperation allows artists and scientists to bring the populous the best of both worlds. It is only through the melding of science and art that such innovations as computers, cell phones, and televisions are available today.
Links:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434310a.html
http://www.cranfordpub.com/otis/craft_science_art.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4111499
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434301a.html
http://www.saido.org/images/laptops.jpg
Are We Really Separated?
What Contributes to a Separation?
As I read through the articles, I must admit, I found myself wondering why they had been written in the first place. Perhaps I missed the point, but it seemed to me that the main theme was an attempt to bring two separate cultures together. Now while this is an honorable attempt, I feel that it was pursued in an ineffective manner. Rather than distinguish what separates and prevents these two “cultures” from coming together, I believe a discussion of the similarities between the two, and how each benefits from the other would go a long way in an attempt to solve this so-called rift between them.
Three Cultures or Just One?
Now having said that, I personally do not believe in a separation of art and science, or at least not in the sense that they don’t collaborate effectively with one another. I do, however, understand how one could come to this conclusion. Art is a subject in which innovation is encouraged and boundaries are non-existent. Artists are applauded for their originality, and criticized if they become too common. It is, after all, the uniqueness of art that makes it so appealing and applicable to other fields. Science, on the other hand, is governed by physical laws, negating its ability to survive on its own. Tell me, how many square, bulky computers do you see these days? How many foot-long cell phones do you see anymore? The absence of these items is simply a cause of development and evolution. But for this development to occur, collaboration is absolutely necessary. That is to say that in a world in which constant production is apparent, it would be ignorant to state that the cultures of art and science are separate. They are not separated; they are distinguished. I honestly believe that they do not exist separately, but more importantly, I believe they cannot.
http://complexes.blogspot.com/2006/12/art-vs-science.html
www.aps.anl.gov/News/APS_News/2007/20070402.htm
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/69414/Whereartmeetsscience.aspx
