theconversation.com: It’s a stereotype, but many of us have made the assumption that scientists are a bit rigid and less artistic than others. Artists, on the other hand, are often seen as being less rational than the rest of us. Sometimes described as the left side of the brain versus the right side – or simply logical thinking versus artistic creativity – the two are often seen as polar opposites.
15 comments:
I spent a while feeling rather out of place due to both doing art and being a science nerd. When I was planning to apply to college, I was choosing between going on an art or science based path. I also think stereotypes surrounding the personality of artists might be part of why I don’t feel like an artist. I think in a very logic based was, and I analyze almost everything I do, probably more than it needs to be analyzed. I’ve always felt like the art-science divide wasn’t as real as people make it out to be, but it is really nice to see this article confirm it. I wonder how it came to be that our culture determined that artists and scientists were somehow opposites, and I also wonder how long it will take us to unlearn that false divide. I know that even after reading this and knowing the dichotomy is objectively false, I still feel out of place as an art major that in very interested in science.
I have always thought that this debate about being an artsy person or a sciency person was sort of bullshit. I think its an outdated concept, it forces people to fall into a very specific category, and the issue with that is that people aren't just one thing. The other problem with this concept is the assumption that "art" and "science" are easily definable things that we can just place people in. Art itself has a HUGE range of what it is. For example, my best friend studies musical theater. she is an actress, and an artists. But she can not stand visual art. and doesn't understand it all. In addition to that she got A's in every math and science class she ever took. So what sort of mind does she have? And for that matter why does it matter? This article talks about a lot of things, and it does a good job at "exploding" the myth of the two minds, but I think more than that we have to talk about why those two minds need to exist, or why we feel the need to separate people by what they are good at. If you want to love art, or have an artsy mind, go for it, but like science too, be well rounded, and stop trying to fit yourself into a box regardless of which one it is.
Much like the myth of the left brain and right brain, there has been more than a few attempts to delineate between artistic and scientific minds. The author immediately mentions that this is a stereotype, but by writing an article, he perpetuates the stereotype. It's important to mention that neuroscience has shown that whenever we do something we use both sides of our brain, as that goes a long way towards breaking up our perception of left brain right brain, but right after we get another way to break up the mind in the form of convergent and divergent thinking. This isn't brought up much more, which helps immerse us in the point of flow, which he discusses next. I don't necessarily feel like I can reach a flow state with every assignment I do, whether it be artistic or scientific, but rather when I'm doing the things I love I reach peak performance. I agree with Sarah that we don't need to find ways to destroy the myth, but rather to understand where the myth comes from, as we are all at fault for perpetuating it by attempting to destroy it. Only be creating a greater understanding can we actually cause a change in perception.
The "academia brain" versus the "creative brain" has been an age old debate. Like Sarah said above, I also sort of feel like it's sort of bullshit that you're either one or the other. It's completely possible to be both and I believe that the best creator is certainly a blend of both sides. I feel like this stereotype arose from high school experiences-- where all the art & humanities kids were the ones pushing the social and artistic boundaries (and usually being more liberal, where that's concerned) and the academic kids (science/math) being nerds who get straight A++++'s in every single class and are on the debate team while also being on senate and robotics. These boundaries separated the two "classes" and they never really met in the middle to collaborate. However, I noticed this very attempt to mesh the two sides the other day when I was walking through Purnell. I was reading a poster that was in regards to a social mixer that was between the School of Drama students and the Computer Science students. I thought this was so interesting because it represented the fact that those two areas of discipline don't have to exist alone but together, can create amazing and mind-blowing work.
This is another significant example of the power stereotypes can have over one's perspective and actions. I was very fortunate growing up to have had a fairly balanced educational experience, which placed relatively equal emphasis on the arts and the sciences through both my proper schooling, as well as my extracurriculars. But the foremost science and technology magnet school in my area (perhaps the country), Thomas Jefferson, was often written off when it came to school plays and like endeavors. Because they excelled so greatly in terms of science, and particular cognitive pathways, it was widely assumed that they could not possibly also be good in areas that demanded a more creative, "free" approach. The damage stereotypes and these deeply ingrained assumptions can have on the developmental process of a young adult moving through the modern education system is immeasurable. We almost teach kids to pigeon hole themselves as soon as a certain aptitude - which is frequently confused with passion - is discovered.
I definitely think people good at things like programming/science/maths are in some ways similar to artists - so many apps and games that we use today are created by them and the creation process requires both their logical skills and creativity. This classification reminds me of a lot of other stereotyping that we give people, such as type A vs. type B personality, introverts vs. extroverts, etc. These categorizations can have some pretty negative effects because certain labels have other implied meanings attached to it. For instance, science/math-y people are often considered to be smart while art students are less often described with the word smart. This combined with the misconception that a person can only be either science-y or artsy and unable to be both can be very misleading. I think the stereotype of "artistic" versus "scientific" people is also really prevalent at CMU. For example, when I meet someone studying subjects like computer science or engineering, I automatically consider them to be "smart people". At the same time, my friends outside of drama always refers to me as "artistic" even though they haven't seen much of my work at all. I think this myth is pretty deeply engrained into a lot of people, and it's important for them to realize that it's not true.
It’s hard for me to say that I agree with this stereotype. So often in the design world we see these technically minded people who are much more calculated with their decisions. I think it is somewhat outdated to say the art world and the science world are separated. I would personally say that science and art are becoming closer together with their discoveries. The two different ways of using the brain show how a person thinks, not what they are good at. For the longest time I thought I was going to be an engineer and take more of a science approach with college but now I am going to school for design production and how my technically-minded brain comes up with a design or an art installation has completely changed the way I look at a scenario. I think the collaboration between these two fields is something that is definitely necessary for the advancement technologies.
I think that this argument that people are either scientific or artistic is stupid and that those who propel it are just ignorant of what the “other side” does for a living. Where is art without logic and analyzing? Where is science without creativity and innovation? I believe that everyone should try and be both scientific and artistic, as mentioned in the article, it can actually boost creativity and success in a work environment. I think that even though the article focuses on artistic scientists, such as Einstein, it needs to look at scientific artists as well. The example that comes from the top of my mind are the people who built the puppet for the show War Horse. They analyzed and studied the way real horses move for months before the production so they could get the movement of the puppet right. This in depth studying is often characterized in science, but its use in the arts has amazing results.
This is very timely because just yesterday I was talking with one of the performance majors about how both of us were deciding between CMU for theater and other schools for the scientific disciplines. I personally don't believe that artistic and scientific talent are mutually exclusive, for the exact reason of convergent and divergent thinking. Being able to problem-solve and think your way around a solution-- what some may call creativity-- are actually the backbones of some STEM fields, like engineering and CS. While a knowledge of the rules and how formulas work is also essential to such disciplines, they wouldn't be able to implement that knowledge without first being able to solve the problems surrounding it. Alternately, while convergent thinkers may be better with logic and analytics, I think free-thinking is possible by all people. I think I'm more of a convergent thinker, but I still love to create things artistically outside of problem sets and STEM-based work.
This article supports a feeling I have had for a long time. You don’t have to be bad at science to be good at art and vice versa. For me in fact I find that some of my most creative artistic solutions are often inspired by my “left brain” even though this article continues the modern trend of dismissing that term. Being able to think in a convergent manner doesn’t mean that you can’t think creatively. It is just another idea at the end of the day that you can evaluate and see where it might fit in your next project. Science too requires people to be able to think in both ways. Convergent thinking is useful but science is also in the position of sometimes having to throw out our entire understanding how the universe works in order to advance the field. Without some element of divergent thinking I doubt this would ever come to pass.
Like many of the other commenters, I’ve also always thought that this whole concept of left-brained people versus right-brained people was outdated and a little bit stupid. It also puts harmful stereotypes on both sides. It strips scientists, mathematicians, and engineers of the creativity and beauty of their work while at the same time making artists and the arts seem frivolous and easy, like finger painting. I think recognizing that different people think and problem solve in different ways is super important, especially in an academic setting. However, categorizing people because of the way they think won’t do anyone any good. Science needs people who tend to think more laterally and come at issues from different angles, just as much as the arts needs people who are more analytical. Allowing young children to get put in a box the minute they start showing aptitude from one subject or another is problematic as the minute we limit the diversity of thinking within any field it will inevitably begin to fail, because people who all think the same way will overlook all the same problems.
I always read these kinds of articles, even though I know that the writer will inevitably say that “creative/ right brained/ artistic people and scientific/ left brained/ math- oriented people aren’t actually all that different!”. I still think it’s deeply interesting how/ why people develop contrasting interests and habits, and why art and science actually require many of the same skills. I always find it annoying when people assume that I’m not good at science or more “technical” activities, or that I’m super disorganized or consistently unaware just because I like to paint. I think there is this sort of implied divide even within our own class, between those who want to declare design and ptm. I know many of the managers have been surprised by how much they’ve enjoyed the deliberateness of an artistic task, and many of the designers are some of the most organized, in- control people I’ve ever met.
As someone who considered herself a ‘science person’ most of her life, this article was very interesting to me. It took me a long time to recognize the science in art and the art in science, but it is most definitely there. One of the biggest problems as to why people see science as rigid is that way that it is taught in schools. The average person’s science education (up through high school at least) is based on memorization and learning concepts that already exist. In math that might mean memorizing formulas or theorems. In biology it’s memorizing processes and names. In physics it’s equations and relationships. Of course no one is going to see this form of science as creative and artistic, it’s just memorizing stuff people already discovered and not bringing anything of your own into it. But higher level science and math? It’s based entirely on creativity. You have to see things that aren’t there, construct proofs, bring concepts together. You have to find things that other people don’t find, make discoveries. You even develop your own style of working through problems. Those traits are incredibly artistic. The science in art is just as easy to find. The methodology and philosophy behind every art piece is scientific. The logic of execution and process and materials choice are all made through the same serious of rational decision making processes that the scientific method uses. Testing a paint treatment? More like testing your hypothesis. The only difference between art and science is that one is considered more useful in our society, and why that is I will never understand.
I love this article. I have always believed that the sciences and arts are very closely related, and don't agree with much of the hypothesis in the beginning. However, the main conclusion they draw I totally support. I have always liked both science and arts. When I was applying to colleges I was applying to school for science majors as well as theater. Here, I am currently working towards a minor in neuroscience. What I always found interesting though was that people thought it was a strange combination of majors I wanted to study. I am a very passionate person about the arts, but I really enjoy science too, I think a lot of us do. I don't always notice the inverse of that thought. My friends who are biology majors or computer science majors don't always seem to appreciate the arts. I think using word just science is now a days inclusive of so many field and some are more close the arts than others, and I think that is where people have differing theories on the way people work in those fields. Just a fun fact: I had an MRI done recently (I have a severe concussion) and I found out I have a extra compressed gray matter in my brain (the squiggle things) just like Albert Einstein was known for having.
This is a very interesting article and I think that it hits home with technical directors/designers as well as others in theater. Depending on who you ask, you’ll get a different answer as to what science is about. I think that many will tell you that science is about experimentation and discovery. Art is about experimentation and discovery as well. In the realm of theater, I think this applies to technical directors as they are often trying to figure out new, better, or just different ways of doing things. Mythbuster’s Adam Savage said something to the effect of the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down. For me, as a technical director this is really key. Understanding why or how your results work is key to creating a new technical design. I also think that one of the biggest differences here is that science (or experimentation) and art don’t require math. Once math gets involved – all bets are off.
Post a Comment