Seed magazine has a really interesting series of articles going now that focus on the concept that Art education should be incorporated into Science and Math school curriculums in order for America to become competitive with the rest of the world, that Art education (and artistic ways of thinking) are in fact actually essential to further developing science.
This article in particular might be of interest to forum readers. So if you are only going to read one, i would pick this one to check out.
One quote from one of the other articles i thought was really great (it's in italics below), which has to do with the notion of taking a mistake or what would initial appear to be a defect, and re-interpreting it as a strength to be utilized.
This topic comes up from time to time in discussions here. It can be as simple as going with the flow rather than trying to fight it if some Studio Artist experiment or session is leading you in a certain direction (which might be different from where you initially intended to go). Or choosing a certain set of restrictions on how to approach an artistic piece, and then living with those restrictions. Or living with the results of random processes and then moving forward with them, rather than trying to spend hours minutely tweaking something endlessly (as people often do with their 100 layer projects in another popular graphics program i will leave unnamed).
One of my more recent pieces, “New Mitosis,” [Shown Above] began as a spill of diluted black ink on the left side of a large (66cm x 101cm) sheet of watercolor paper, which I folded along the vertical axis to blot the ink and then pipetted six droplets of my favorite brown ink on top. The ink seemed to come from a batch with a factory defect: It looked more red than brown, had lumps of some sort of precipitate, separated into two liquids, and acted quite unpredictably when combined with other media (branching out, spilling unevenly, streaming in unexpected directions). If I had come across this ink before I began working on the Pareidolia series, I probably would have dumped the ink and bought a new bottle. But with time and experience I have learned the value of pausing to consider, at least for a quick moment, if anything could benefit from what appears to be a problem or mistake. I believe that it is these moments of apparent setbacks that are actually some of the most valuable in both art and science. They break the normal flow of events, introducing a junction that can lead to greater, more significant discoveries.
Replies
John,
As you well know, I have been talking about these issues for years.
Quoting Picasso's "What saved me is that I became more interested in what I found than in what I was looking for" has become like a mantra (I can hear other say "there he goes again";-).
But I can also quote Fernando Pessoa (in his Alberto Caeiro persona):
Lightly, lightly, very lightly,
a wind passes very lightly
and goes away, always very lightly.
And I don't know what I think
and I don't want to know.
The master-class on images-music improvisation I just gave in Mons was very much centered on something similar: "I don't know what I am doing, and I do not want to know!"
There's no doubt in my mind that this very "not-knowing" is the door to our best work (you'll recall that, at the very beginning of the "What is creativity?" thread, I said "Creativity is what happens when one no longer knows what to do, but does it anyway.").
I still stand by that now, as I have for many decades.
Several times in the past, I have had thoughts of participating in seminars/comferences/whatever in which artists and scientists would come together without any definite object, other then (for example), the commitment to put together a "show/performance" by the end of the time spent together (a week would be ideal).
A common and "vague" purpose without a defined road map can (and DOES) lead to amazing results, but in today's academic world, that is hardly imaginable.
In science, as in the arts, we have made the shift from pure research/Art to applied research/art, and given the short-term "vision" of most of those making the decisions, I see little hope for any significant change.
I also dread to see what could happen to the "teaching" of Art if it were migrated to the Sciences dept.. I have already seen what has happened to that by having Art schools be assimilated by the university, the harm done by imposing a curriculum that has to be followed in order to obtain an irrelevant degree is unmeasurable.
My old friend and mentor Mercedes Matter had it right all along: "To have received a degree in Fine Art from such and such university is a sure sign that one DID NOT study art for four years in that institution."
We live in an age of "how-to," most people want to know how to do something without undergoing change themselves and yet, Husserl said it well: "To acquire a certain kind of knowledge, one has to become a certain kind of person."
One is moved by a particular piece, and most/too often, the question is not "how could I be like that" but rather, "how was that done?"
Could this be "the age of plumbing" as in: "Plumbers of the world, unite!"?
Long live Poetry...
This is a very timely discussion. Both of your contributions are well appreciated. This subject just came up in a discussion I had with my drawing teacher at the Art Students League today. In that discussion, he told me that back in the 1800s, drawing exercises used to be included in the math books for elementary school students. They realized back then that to develop a cultured well rounded student (person), being able to draw [see] (my teachers approach equivelates learning how to draw as first learning how to see) was paramount. Unfortunately, in a country where materialism ranks above all else, that type of well rounded cultured approach and the resultant programs were lost.
Many university art programs here were developed/expanded in response to the demand after World War II. The demand from returning soldiers lead universities to feel that developing art departments would be a cash cow. The present day is witnessing the demise of university programs that are no longer in such demand. Apparently author Tom Wolfe predicted this years ago.
What is most important is that children be taught in a more enlightened manner. We have become a blind country, unable to see correctly and therefore unable to think clearly and make choices based on seeing what is before us.
The real issue for me is not just whether we are economically competitive with other countries. What troubles me is that that generally speaking we are turning into a country of illiterate blind buffoons quite comfortable with digital devices and button pushing. We are unable to see, think deeply or engage is such important discussions as this one.
Years ago I realized America does not really support the arts or understand their importance. How unfortunate and sad. Even Chinese warlords realized centuries ago the importance of the arts to their society (until Mao).
Today I am really afraid not just for my future, but for the future of this country. In the rush to riches, it lost its moral and cultural compass many years ago. Though we may not experience a tsunami in the way that Japan has, there is the possibility that we will experience our own form of this devastation unless we embrace a more enlightened approach to the arts and life. It can not just be based on an economic need, but one that first enriches our interior self.
I imagine if you were to look at "art" as playing with the things that "science" manipulates...
And like all play - changing the value (literally - the practical use) of both the processes and the results of manipulating things.
Then you will get what you might get from play. Rule changes and new configurations of "use" emerge...
Making play of things.
Games of things...
Games that still deal with things (the same old things)... But from a place where run of the mill results aren't so strictly anticipated - nor insisted on...
Games and play still have rules. New rules and (potentially) freely changing rules. Games still deal or refer to "things" in the world - or representations of them and have their own internal (rule) logic related to the world. In the end games and play are formalized and made "normal". Learned and repeated. Even the most outlandish variations. A game that is played more than once and by more than one person, is learned.
Games are great for learning regular rules and can put a nice twist on how we might "re"-look at things as they are "normally" treated. Maybe even accidentally (thru the form of playing) discover a new way to deal with things (a new way that has a practical use right along side the old ways).
Play is a great way to learn. Both learn to deal with "normal" things and a good medium to extrapolate with.
Art, play, (anything that isn't totally formula driven) practiced along with learning well tested processes and techniques works a whole lot more brain cells. Makes more connections. Builds a bigger picture.
But - I would not bet that the appetite of the times is for a "bigger picture".
Just because the Liberal Arts aren't covered in the schools doesn't mean they aren't ever present. There is literally a super abundance of "art" (information) all around us. So much so that "art" is fast losing value as a commodity. Maybe even losing its value as attractive (interesting). You could look at the lack of inventiveness of school learning and the dropping of some Liberal Arts from school curriculum as a self regulating mechanism in action. If things are making less and less sense - slow down (in school and elsewhere) and focus on things that are steady and predictable. Focus on mundane tool learning to be applied to mundane tool use. Maybe from deliberately turning our eyes down to avoid the mess and noise and glare - we might just be able to start filtering out the mess... A whole culture has been built from filtering stuff out. Ignore something enough and it will start to go away. If it goes far enough away - we will want it back.
Bring art back - unschooled, refreshed and full of new value.
I think part of what they are trying to get at in the article series is incorporating techniques good at expanding student's ability to think. And art and exposure to art is something that meets that criteria (at least in my mind and the minds of the authors of the articles in the Seed magazine collection i sited). And perhaps the notion of 'games' or 'game playing' is another thing to add to that list of techniques to stimulate young (and old) brain cells.
The cliched example is Bohr looking at a cubist painting and then having the expanded or alternate world view presented to him in that painting influence the way he was thinking about sub atomic physics, which lead him to new scientific insights because he expanded his worldview of the possible to include what was formally thought to be impossible.
Part of the whole point about working with or learning art is expanding your worldview, your ways of thinking about and processing information, working with and expanding creativity. Some people on the forum would probably argue it's all about learning how to not think, but let's just view that as another expanded world view or creativity expansion technique as opposed to getting lost in semantic arguments.
As far as American competitiveness, in general i hate these kind of nationalistic labelings, it's like Steven Colbert chanting USA-USA on his comedy news show. But there's an article in the NYT today that sites a study ranking the USA at 52 ranking worldwide when it comes to math and science education, which given the nature of our society and place in the world is really pretty pathetic, especially when you look at what it foretells for the future. So i think people do need to take a hard look at how we teach and approach education in this country and get busy re-inventing the wheel. Whether you agree with what the Seed people are talking about or not, there's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, which isn't going to be solved by standardized testing or government mandates to do better.
John,
i am going to put my words in Pessoa's mouth, quoting myself as well.
When he (as Caeiro) says
"...And I don't know what I think
and I don't want to know."
and when I say
"I don't know what I am doing, and I do not want to know!"
I take it we both mean that we do not want to think about thinking while thinking, we do not want to think about doing while doing.
It does not mean we do not want to think, far, far, far from it.
"Just thinking" and "just doing," that is what I am pointing at, I trust Pessoa/Caeiro is as well.
We may be much more than we "think" we are, and we may be able to accomplish a lot more than we think ourselves capable of if we do not trip all over our (thinking about) doing by trying to analyze what is happening while it is happening.
There's so much that we actually do, so much that is being done, that does not need our being in "control" in order to happen. Our culture has placed too much emphasis on the working of our discursive mind, there's so much "noise" (it's been called "brain-roof chatter") between "us" and "the world," we can hardly "hear" what our experience has to say, and we seem very little inclined to go about gaining a modicum of silence.
Good thing our heart does not need our being in control of its functioning in order to beat, or we'd all be dead by now.
I am very aware of the limits of the grade school system right now. My children are halfway thru essentially. Their schools have dropped close to all forms of liberal arts. Art classes are gone. Many of the kinds of activity that the kids would have got in art class are now integrated into the three R's classes. This - of course - dilutes the actual three R's learning. But the kids are getting some exposure to the "arts".
What's missing is a sense of value in the arts. But - as I mentioned - I think that is a result of an over abundance of "art"... essentially free (thus low in value) for all. The idea that artistic things might add more than just a little color and distraction to the classroom is not there - even when it is deliberately introduced thru projects or products that focus attention on art.
A creative thinking approach is not part of their equation either. This isnt very different from my grade school education in the 60's and 70's. There's not much need for creative thinking when the curriculum is fixed. Most of my creative effort was put into minimizing effort or having fun - in school.
What really counted most in the classroom setting was ANY enthusiasm I saw in a teacher for the subject they were teaching. My 6th grade art class teacher - a local working artist - loved art. That love rubbed off - along with a few really standard techniques.
Love of math or grammar, physics or chemistry... Thats another very different thing.
I never encountered the same interest in those areas as I did for art. Nor did I encounter practitioners of those skills that showed the same love and largesse in sharing as I found with artists.
It seems like the conflict is in the need to learn techniques - in school - and the value of and ability to find inspiration thru all kinds of associations at large.
Thanks by the way for posting things that catch your interest. They pique mine as well.
I was very lucky as a child to grow up in a school district that had a few exceptional teachers in a diverse group of different subjects, as well as access to a ton of diverse books via various libraries, so i was exposed to love of art as well as science and literature. And that diversity of exposure to different subject matters continued for me into my college and graduate engineering school education as well, and then into my engineering work carrier which again seemed to straddle boundaries between traditional scientific research or engineering design and the arts in many different ways.
All of the really interesting research work happens at the boundaries of different traditional academic fields these days. The old notions of rigid lines between curriculum is really antiquated and out of touch with the modern world. And K through 12th grade education is probably the furtherest behind what is happening in the real world and addressing kids for how they are going to have to deal with it. If kids need to learn anything today, it's how to critically and creatively think, and how to deal with and manage ever increasing change.
I'm about as hard core science as they get, and education in art and creative expression has been a huge boost for my engineering career. And not just because i currently program digital art software, everything in my background associated with electronic publishing, digital audio and signal processing, AI research, it all tied into having a diverse educational background. To cut things like art and music out of educational curriculum is really stupid, and short sighted, and totally missing the point of what science and engineering are really all about as professions.
I also find it interesting that in other cultures, like Bali for example, there's this notion that everyone is an artist, it's not something exotic or unusual, it's just a part of living life. Everyone is a musician or a painter or a dancer or some kind of artist, it's no different than eating or breathing to them. The fact that our culture has turned this notion of artistic expression and creative thinking as an essential part of living on it's head and now consider these areas of pursuit to be extraneous or a waste of time on an educational level probably has something to do with why we're currently lagging at 52nd in math and science education when compared to the rest of the world.
John said: "All of the really interesting research work happens at the boundaries of different traditional academic fields these days."
Very true, so much so that most of my colleagues who do interesting work have had to disguise their research in order to obtain funds to support their research.
That prompted me to write the following article.
As for me, I grew very tired of the academc world and its limitations/politics, so much so that after many years of teaching, I pulled out completely, at least as far as full-time teaching positions are concerned.
I now visit, but I no longer "live" there...
The master-class (all 3 videos are now on Vimeo) I just gave in Mons, Belgium, was one instance in which bringing together two disciplines (visual arts and music) created sparks, and it only reinforced my conviction that this is what needs to be done.
But I don't see much happening in regular schools to promote that kind of exploration; by definition, this approach bridges various niches, it stands outside normal channels, in fact, it does not "exist" as per established definitions.
And as I feel a lot closer to Bali and its positing that everyone is an artist, I see little value in wasting valuable creative time over battles that are not worth the effort.
All we can do, all that I have been able to do, in regular academic situations, is to pretend we do real work.
But it is a lie, real work is done for its own sake, as a compulsion, it does not need a carrot dangling at the end of a stick in order to be done.
I saw how the very best art school I ever had the privilege to teach at, the New York Studio School of Drawing, Painting and Sculpture, was snuffed out the minute it stopped being a "simple" studio school (no degree, "just" work), and entered the degree-granting racket.
There was a great book that was relatively popular many years ago, "Punished by Rewards"
It offered a brilliant analysis of, and alternatives to, education (and the ways of work-world), but of course, it was ignored, mostly.
Our loss...
My reaction is rather sideways to the discussion, but all I can think of when the topic is defects as feature is:
what wonderful works of art we humans are..
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next